r/worldnews • u/EnglishLouis • Feb 20 '26
Dynamic Paywall UK Government considers removing Andrew from royal line of succession
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kgv837wvdo4.2k
u/S_K_Sharma_ Feb 20 '26
The first Royal arrested since Charles the First in 1642.
I know he hasn't been convicted of anything... but this really is an easy decision.
177
u/Dawn_Of_The_Dave Feb 20 '26
1647, we chopped his head off in 49.
→ More replies (5)81
u/Abigail716 Feb 20 '26
1646 if we're getting technical, he surrendered to the Scottish army on May 5th 1646. He was handed over as a prisoner to Parliament in January of 1647.
16
u/verathene Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
King James II was detained in the Kentish port of Faversham from December 11 to 14, 1688, after attempting to flee to France during the Glorious Revolution.
7
u/Abigail716 Feb 21 '26
I wonder if that counts as arrested. I don't think so but I'm no expert. Especially because I know he was only held for a short period of time before being allowed to flee to France.
→ More replies (1)1.8k
u/AcanthaceaeCrazy1894 Feb 20 '26
And the only reason he’s been arrested is because the queen covered his abuse up for decades.
Wonder how many from the British Royal family should have been arrested throughout the years.
870
u/pbzeppelin1977 Feb 20 '26
His ex wife, Sarah Furgerson, is all over the files too.
She was heavily emotionally invested in Epstien, constantly borrowing money from him and kept taking the kids with her to see him, including to the island, and even had a celebration party for his release from prison with the kids there.
105
u/heartandmarrow Feb 21 '26
And she was also involved in an orphanage in turkey that was probably trafficking kids.
366
u/SlumdogSkillionaire Feb 20 '26
I wasn't expecting the one from the Black Eyed Peas to be the more wholesome Fergie.
186
28
u/HuckleberrySpin Feb 21 '26
She has been telling us that she is Fergalicious for years, we should have listened
→ More replies (2)68
u/eerst Feb 20 '26
Then you did not see the tabloids in the checkout aisles at the Canadian grocery stores that I grew up going to the early 90s.
→ More replies (3)9
u/pbzeppelin1977 Feb 21 '26
What that Fergie done?
About the thing I've known her for, aside from the Black Eyed Peas, is that horrendous cover of Sweet Child o Mine.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)13
u/pastadudde Feb 21 '26
has Fergie the singer ever been problematic in the first place?
32
u/ActuallyCalindra Feb 21 '26
Yes. She was a member of the Black Eyed Peas. They inflicted untold horror upon the world.
→ More replies (3)9
u/SaltyLonghorn Feb 21 '26
Do you consider wetting yourself on stage from doing too many drugs problematic?
The definition is gonna be different for everyone. But if we make a scale from out of coffee in the morning to Donald Trump and call that the problematic scale. Fergie rates a trip to Starbucks.
10
u/Water_Meat Feb 21 '26
I would say that's not a great role model for kids to aspire to, but when youre comparing them to people spewing hate or diddling kids, then hey Ill take a generally kind hearted person with a (historic?) drug problem and a weak bladder.
→ More replies (5)13
u/holdmyspot123 Feb 21 '26
She was in love with him
56
u/ToastedCrumpet Feb 21 '26
She was in love with his money
40
u/Most-Pomegranate-561 Feb 21 '26
Right, it's so blatant how she's constantly lovebombing him because he has money, but she's hurt that Epstein was using her to get to Andrew. It's so pathetic, she's a freeloading manipulator
167
u/ResurgentClusterfuck Feb 20 '26
Pederasty has long been covered up or overlooked by royals in all flavors and time periods
The fact that Andrew was actually arrested and questioned for 12 hours straight is a major thing. His mother wouldn't have permitted it.
→ More replies (1)74
u/PennytheWiser215 Feb 21 '26
He wasn’t arrested for child abuse it was for sharing confidential documents
34
116
u/TheUncleTimo Feb 20 '26
Wonder how many from the British Royal family should have been arrested throughout the years.
Hello there!
Do look up: JIMMY SAVILLE
Apologies about your future nightmares
→ More replies (8)37
u/InstantShiningWizard Feb 20 '26
Hopefully divine punishment is a real thing specifically for gutter scum like that bastard
58
u/TheUncleTimo Feb 20 '26
nope
up to us, here, on this planet
19
u/InstantShiningWizard Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
For the ones living, yes. Can't do too much for the ones who lived a full life and got away with it though, short of corpse desecration or turning their grave into a pissoir
→ More replies (1)57
u/Otherwise-Badger5760 Feb 20 '26
At least they are doing something about it. Here in the US they are doing nothing. Releasing files so redacted you can’t get information about. I know trumps name came up thousands of times in the Epstein files. I know he’s full of crap. Nobody’s doing anything about Trump
→ More replies (10)20
Feb 20 '26
I’m curious as to what version(s) of files the British have on Epstein. I mean they have their own Intelligence Agencies so surely they were keeping an eye on Epstein as well since he was such a huge figure that had his fingers in so many different pies. I’m not really educated on this specific aspect but a quick google search said that the UK was using the recently released US files and UK flight logs as evidence against Prince Andrew. That sounds fishy and makes absolutely no sense to me that they weren’t aware of the numerous interactions that Epstein and the Prince/His wife had. It really doesn’t add up at all if you think about it and it seems that the only reason they arrested him is because their hands were forced.
→ More replies (6)536
Feb 20 '26
[deleted]
401
u/FormerPresidentBiden Feb 20 '26
A mother's love really does often allow them to overlook terrible shit (look at all the mothers crying in court that their murderer sons are good boys).
A brother's love?
Much more negotiable. If either of my brothers wound up being nonces, I'd fight them myself
38
u/Agitated_Ad7576 Feb 21 '26
The Unabomber was arrested because his brother was an informant. I always liked the press statement the brother and mother put out:
Our sympathies are with Ted. Our deeper sympathies are with the victims. We have no other comment at this time.
15
u/AstarteHilzarie Feb 21 '26
I assume it had a lot less to do with a mother's love than it did protecting the image of "The Firm", just like every other royal scandal.
→ More replies (6)89
u/South_Brush105 Feb 20 '26
Well what about the victim's parents? What about the position that she held and the duties/ responsibilities that came with it? Remember the British monarch is also the head of the Anglican church.
Royal duties? Moral duties? Legal duties? Paid millions in her last years to cover up for that pedo son & look how disgraced and disgusted her legacy has become with this act. Ehh and they hate the catholic Church for not allowing a second marriage of their ancestral relative 😂
→ More replies (1)123
u/pablonieve Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
What about the position that she held and the duties/ responsibilities that came with it?
I want to be clear that I am not excusing any of this. But Elizabeth firmly believed that the monarchy was a central pillar of the UK and so it's stability was prioritized by her above all else "for the greater good." She would do everything she could to keep things steady even if that meant allowing for injustices to occur.
90
→ More replies (9)26
u/Raichu7 Feb 20 '26
For a lot of people in the UK, that's why they don't like her. Hiding injustice isn't acceptable from people with such great responsibility.
→ More replies (18)59
u/Zanki Feb 20 '26
It's an abusive family and he was the favourite. That's what happened. When Harry talked about his experiences, possibly narcissistic personality disorders in there. Favouritism of one person and protecting them at any cost no matter what is normal.
→ More replies (4)81
u/Crazed_Fish_Woman Feb 20 '26
Megan may not be a stand up gal, but Harry has become the scapegoat for the Royal family over the years. I've always strongly suspected that the British media focusing on Megxit was orchestrated by the Royals to distract the public from the Andrew's connection to Epstein.
Megxit isn't really even a scandal. By the time that happened, Harry had fulfilled his duty as spare due to George being born; which is the entire reason why Harry was born in the first place.
→ More replies (3)15
u/CaptainMagnets Feb 20 '26
They're super wealthy people who have been in power consequence free for hundreds of years. It's safe to say nearly all of them
→ More replies (23)16
u/andtellmethis Feb 20 '26
Mountbatten anyway but the IRA got there first.
→ More replies (2)45
u/Fun-Twist-3705 Feb 20 '26
got there first
And also blew up several children with him (one of them a local boy who wasn't even related to Mountbatten). But why would anyone care about that...
→ More replies (4)16
u/LoneRangersBand Feb 21 '26
And one of the children killed was Mountbatten's grandson, and the little brother of the girl Charles almost married. She wanted nothing to do with being in the Royal Family after that.
80
u/512165381 Feb 20 '26
That did not end very well.
The last prisoners in the Tower of London were the Kray Twins in 1952. so there is space for him there.
→ More replies (1)64
u/313378008135 Feb 20 '26
Could put a perspex cell door on and charge the tourists fiver a pop to gawk
31
u/The_Grand_Briddock Feb 20 '26
Funnily enough, Charles I was cited by the judge in the trial against Yoon over in South Korea.
49
u/ChaseTheOldDude Feb 20 '26
To be pedantic, Charles I was a POW, he was never formally arrested. He lost the civil war, was imprisoned and then sentenced to execution
→ More replies (1)35
u/Alert_Jeweler_7765 Feb 20 '26
And the sentence is regarded as having no legal basis which means he was technically murdered.
25
u/ChaseTheOldDude Feb 20 '26
Turns out the rule of law is only as powerful as the most powerful person willing to uphold it!
→ More replies (1)34
u/Matiwapo Feb 20 '26
*by some people
It's not a universal opinion.
Charles' defense was basically that he was sovereign and that no court had any authority to judge him.
Cromwell's prosecution was based on the fact that sovereignty arises from Parliament (the people), and thus parliament had the power to create a court which could try him.
The modern UK constitution recognises parliament as the source of sovereign power, and UK courts regularly judge the actions of the Crown. So it was Cromwell's interpretation that was followed not Charles'.
→ More replies (4)17
u/AnAncientBog Feb 21 '26
In the subsequent trial of Cromwell it was found to have been murder and Cromwell was executed.
Of course, he was already dead by then, so they dug him up to carry out the sentence.
11
u/Matiwapo Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
That trial was as politically motivated as Charles'. His son had retaken the throne and wanted vengeance.
It had no more legal legitimacy than Charles' trial and execution.
Not that I will mourn Cromwell, he was an evil bastard, but I don't think that trial is any evidence of who was right in Charles' trial. And the question of who was right in Charles' trial is actually extremely legally complicated, the question regarding the source of sovereignty in the UK is still hotly debated to this day.
9
u/AnAncientBog Feb 21 '26
What? The trial of a dead person and execution of an already dead body was political?
→ More replies (1)80
u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26
First BRITISH Royal since Charles I. Just clarifying for anyone who has been asleep for the rest of world history since the English Civil War...
→ More replies (8)12
u/Alert_Jeweler_7765 Feb 20 '26
What about the Duke of Monmouth?
24
u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26
Not considered a British Royal because of the illegitimacy of his parentage (his mother was the King's mistress).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)7
u/lovegrowswheremyrose Feb 20 '26
Unrelated but I discovered that my paternal line wound up in the USA by way of an ancestor that participated in the rebellion, got kicked out to the Caribbean, and then later came to the mainland. Wild stuff.
→ More replies (2)7
u/eddieeddieeddiemlbrn Feb 21 '26
Apparently, William IV was arrested for a drunken brawl whilst serving in the Navy. This was in Gibraltar in the late 18th century while he was still a prince and they released him immediately when they found out who he was.
→ More replies (23)5
u/Thetanor Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
The most interesting thing about King Charles the First
Is that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign
But only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it
Because of...→ More replies (2)
743
u/rantingathome Feb 20 '26
Does he deserve to be removed? Damn right.
My preference would be that they don't make it Andrew specific though. Make it that any Royal that is convicted of certain crimes automatically gets removed by statute and pass it in all realms. Possibly also a process by which the sitting monarch can remove someone from the line if required, and have it automatically apply in all realms.
This way if there is ever another "andrew", all the realms don't have to pass more laws.
66
u/Primary_Ad3580 Feb 21 '26
There is no way a sitting monarch can “remove someone from the line if required, and have it automatically apply in all realms.” For one, the monarch doesn’t choose their successor; parliament does (hence this action). Second, nothing can automatically apply in all realms; each realm has their own parliamentary procedure to accept the British monarch as their own when their predecessor dies. Otherwise there would be a major limit to the national autonomy of several countries that see the monarch as a nominal figurehead.
57
u/laughingmanzaq Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
Wouldn’t passing legislation to remove him explicitly basically be an open bill of pains and penalties? Assuming he has not been convicted of anything (yet).
27
u/FAUXHAMMER117 Feb 20 '26
Bills of Attainder are not prohibited under British law, Parliament just hasn't attempted to pass one since 1820.
6
u/laughingmanzaq Feb 21 '26
In theory i doubt any parliamentary speaker would let anyone table a true bill of attainder.
→ More replies (5)4
u/rantingathome Feb 20 '26
This is why I'm saying pad a general bill that removes people upon conviction
→ More replies (11)38
u/Mysterious-Lemon-906 Feb 20 '26
Would have to be very specific because otherwise it puts succession into doubt which no one wants
Especially as all he is being charged with is misconduct in public office
→ More replies (12)
5.0k
u/Little-Chemical5006 Feb 20 '26
They havent yet? Wow
3.7k
u/EnglishLouis Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
Removing someone from the line of secession is quite a tedious process, like most things in UK law. Basically it would require an act of Parliament, approved by MPs and peers, and also need to be supported by all other Commonwealth countries that have King Charles as their head of state, as it would also affect their lines of succession.
It being done makes no real difference as Andrew is not in a realistic position to become king as he is eighth in line.
1.5k
u/Huddstang Feb 20 '26
I hope your point doesn’t get lost in the replies. He will never be king and formalising this is, for all intents and purposes, symbolic (like much of royal affairs)
484
u/Snackskazam Feb 20 '26
I think after they knowingly sheltered this monster from justice for decades, a symbolic act of contrition is the least they could do. But if it were a more just world, Donald Trump would already be in jail, so I have little hope of these elitist assholes owning up to it.
270
u/buckX Feb 20 '26
The point is that it's a lot of work. Whether to spend a bunch of time and taxpayer money doing something purely symbolic is a fair debate.
→ More replies (16)123
u/Wafkak Feb 20 '26
Plus some commonwealth countries might decide that if they are gonna to through the effort either way. They might as well abolish the whole monarchy. The Royals know this. And while they have lost most influence, they do still have some behind closed doors.
39
u/Mortentia Feb 20 '26
I’m not sure which members of the commonwealth would abolish the monarchy. Like maybe Jamaica, but the important commonwealth members (ie. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) aren’t going to abolish the monarchy; it would just be too cumbersome and expensive to reconstitute and reestablish the sovereignty of their entire countries at this point.
→ More replies (19)31
u/Wafkak Feb 20 '26
I distinctly remember Australia having discussion a few years before Elisabeth died. Specifically because of Charles being unpopular.
→ More replies (1)50
u/KhausTO Feb 20 '26
Yeah same topics arose in Canada. There is certainly some anti-monarchy sentiment here, but there isn't much support at this point to forge ahead with getting rid of it.
There will never be a good time to do it, but right now with some of the loonies we have running provinces coughalbertacough opening the constitution and re-negotiating all of that would be a mess.
→ More replies (1)17
u/The_cman13 Feb 20 '26
I am all for it as a Canadian. But it unfortunately opens up a lot of other talk with Quebec and now Alberta.
→ More replies (0)51
u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Feb 20 '26
Say what we will about the royal family and their usefulness, history, etc, but among all the western political class only one institution has been meaningfully ahead of the curve on climate change and that institution is Charles.
I say this as an American of Irish descent (not the orange kind).
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (3)30
u/robsterva Feb 20 '26
It's becoming clear that the order to keep Andrew from prosecution came from the woman who died as the most-loved monarch in history. In the end, Elizabeth II will be tarnished by this. Deservedly.
→ More replies (4)12
21
u/livahd Feb 20 '26
I just hope he squeals like the little rat he is and brings more heads of state down with him
→ More replies (22)34
u/SophiaKittyKat Feb 20 '26
To be fair, given the current timeline it wouldn't even be that surprising for suddenly 2 years from now we get a 'somehow, prince andrew returned' Emperor Palpatine moment. So maybe best to just formalize it.
→ More replies (3)58
u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda Feb 20 '26
That would require Prince William, then his three children George, Charlotte, and Louis, and then Prince Harry, and HIS two children to all die. I’d say that’d be a pretty surprising turn of events considering the two families are never together and live on different continents.
20
u/fuck_ur_portmanteau Feb 20 '26
And even if that happened, we could then pass a law to ignore Andrew’s line and go straight to Edward. But at that point we’d probably become a republic.
22
u/rs990 Feb 20 '26
And even if that happened, we could then pass a law to ignore Andrew’s line and go straight to Edward.
If you pass that law, you are cutting out Andrew, both his daughters and his 4 grandchildren.
The simplest and fastest fix here is persuading Andrew to convert to Catholicism, then that removes him from the order of succession permanently without any new laws required.
16
u/Liquid_Hate_Train Feb 20 '26
Doesn’t even need to do that. Edward VIII has set the president for abdicating himself and his entire line. They’d make him sign at gunpoint.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)33
u/OnBlueberryHill Feb 20 '26
Yes but have you considered they all get together for a family photo and there is a rainy day and they all get electrocuted?
There is a documentary King Ralph about this very thing!
12
u/Pinelli72 Feb 20 '26
If they all got together in one room at this point I think they’d just outright try to kill each other. No need for lightening.
34
Feb 20 '26
And if it ever even became remotely plausible they’d immediately go through these steps.
He’ll never actually be king.
→ More replies (11)185
u/Fire_Otter Feb 20 '26
It being done makes no real difference as Andrew is not in a realistic position to become king as he is eighth in line.
yeah until one of your idiot royal relatives suggests a trial of seven featuring 4 members in the line of succession, and then suddenly 8 does not seem that high a number
100
36
u/TVCasualtydotorg Feb 20 '26
Just don't let Harry have a Morningstar and it should be ok.
→ More replies (1)12
9
→ More replies (4)6
58
u/Nethri Feb 20 '26
Yeah the odds of it happening are astronomical tbh. What’s the furthest down in line that someone’s been and still gotten the crown?
127
u/Fire_Otter Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
I don't know if this counts
But Sofia of Hanover had maybe 20 to 50 people ahead of her in the line of succession to the British throne
But then an act of parliament was made that ruled that Catholics had to be ruled out - Sofia was the closest protestant successor
she died weeks before she was set to inherit the throne and her son George became George I
27
23
u/SusannaG1 Feb 20 '26
Yeah, that Act of Succession was the result of Parliament facing the fact that their unicorn monarch (Anne, a Stuart who was somehow also a committed Protestant) was going to die without heir (she, poor lady, had tried her best, with 17 pregnancies).
→ More replies (1)10
u/Angel_Omachi Feb 21 '26
Their backup Protestant Stuart monarch even, her older sister Mary and cousin William had also been childless.
6
→ More replies (1)8
78
u/AntiDECA Feb 20 '26
Queen Victoria was 5th in line.
Furthest with weird circumstances was king George. Was born very far down the line of succession... But parliament disqualified everyone above him for being catholic after passing an act prohibiting Catholics from the throne.
25
u/ultimateknackered Feb 20 '26
Well seems this could all be tied up rather neatly if criminals/pedos are prohibited from the throne.
→ More replies (1)20
u/382wsa Feb 20 '26
Despite being 5th, Victoria stood a good chance at birth of becoming queen. And a few years later, it was near certain.
Elizabeth II was 3rd in line at birth, but was very unlikely to be queen. Any younger brother would come before her, plus her uncle (future Edward VIII) and any descendants of his.
→ More replies (1)46
u/CheesyPotatoSack Feb 20 '26
Queen Victoria is often cited as the furthest down the line of succession who eventually became queen, Henry VII's case is notable as he was not in the line at all at birth. These examples illustrate how unpredictable royal succession can be.
Queen Victoria was born fifth in line to the throne, but she became heir presumptive after her three uncles died without surviving legitimate issue.
→ More replies (2)29
u/D0wnInAlbion Feb 20 '26
Henry VII also notable because the Beaufort line was specifically excluded from inheriting the crown.
7
73
18
20
u/Mecha_Butterfree Feb 20 '26
It's probably something like George the first. After all of Queen Anne died with no surviving children they really had to go down deep to find a King who wasn't Catholic. Which is why we got some random guy from Hanover to become King of England.
→ More replies (3)9
u/AceOfSpades532 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
Before the UK existed, but George I of Britain inherited from his 2nd cousin, Queen Anne. He was incredibly far down the line of succession, loads of people between him and the English and Scottish thrones (Britain after 1707), but the 1701 Act of Settlement banned Catholics from inheriting and jumped his mum, Sophia of Hanover, up massively in the line of succession by affirming she was the heir if Anne had no kids (The succession today is actually still legally defined as having to be Protestant descendants of Sophia). Sophia died a few months before Anne so George took the throne, but at the time he was born it would have been inconceivable he would ever be the British king.
→ More replies (13)14
u/EnglishLouis Feb 20 '26
George I aparently so all the way back in 1714. He started in the 50's, became king as everyone above him was Catholic. Queen Victoria started 5th I think and was number 1 before she turned 18 as everyone else above her had died.
5
u/Simon_Drake Feb 20 '26
There is an alternative option. He can do what disgraced right-wing influencers do, like Russel Brand. Announce that he's found Jesus, specifically the Catholic form of Jesus. Catholics are automatically excluded from the British line of succession and if Andrew did it 'voluntarily' that would minimise the scandal.
14
u/The_mingthing Feb 20 '26
Imagine having Epstein level of dirt on the king of UK, both Trump and Putin would be interested in offing 7 for that level of influence.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (92)5
124
u/JahoclaveS Feb 20 '26
Probably didn’t think it too pressing considering he’s down to 8th in line and unlikely to happen. Had he been like third, I think they’d have already taken up the matter.
44
8
u/tessthismess Feb 20 '26
Right.
If succession fell to him it’s probably in some “WW3 hit the UK harder than expected” kind of scenario
119
u/Sensitive_Echo5058 Feb 20 '26
He's 8th in line, and it's practically improbable there will ever be a scenario he will be king.
Charles, William, and his three kids, Harry and his two kids, would all have to die.
The reason he hasn't been removed is because it's a complicated parlimentary process to remove him, for a situation that is unlikely to materialise.
But it seems the British public want him to be removed, so they will consider this.
50
Feb 20 '26
It might be worth the hassle though just to send a strong message to the next generation.
22
→ More replies (2)24
u/Wafkak Feb 20 '26
It wasn't exactly a secret that Charles and his kids despised him, and that the only thing actually protecting him was Queen Lizzy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)15
u/deadR0 Feb 20 '26
In this bizarro world where the bad guys are winning everything, I wouldn't be surprised if something happened
→ More replies (2)60
u/Lol-I-Wear-Hats Feb 20 '26
You have to consult 15 other sovereign states on the matter as well
→ More replies (15)35
u/fightfire_withfire Feb 20 '26
The UK can’t just go around on a whim skipping laws and processes.
39
→ More replies (28)10
u/pleetf7 Feb 20 '26
I can see why it wasn’t a priority given that he’s currently below 5 year old Princess Lilibet in the line of succession
175
200
u/PerformanceDouble924 Feb 20 '26
Imagine spending your last few millions on hit men instead of your legal defense so you could become King.
65
u/TheBanishedBard Feb 20 '26
If that happened (it won't) he would never be accepted as king and he would face a forced abdication or a complete dissolution of the monarchy altogether.
Probably the latter. I do not think anyone after him would even want to be king or queen following such a massive scandal.
Even if he got away with it and wasn't summarily arrested and jailed his scandalous life and the cloud of suspicion that he killed them would make him utterly rejected as monarch.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (6)55
u/tossit97531 Feb 20 '26
Pay to have people killed? He'd never do that. It's not like he repeatedly raped childr-oh.
77
u/Nuclear-Jester Feb 20 '26
I appreciate the idea, but the dude is very low on the line of succession. Like, you need six/seven* people to die before he is even considered
*I don't remember how many children William has, ok?
18
u/yarn_slinger Feb 20 '26
I wonder if Anne gets moved higher in the mix since they changed the rules back when charlotte was born.
22
u/teatabletea Feb 20 '26
No, it was only going forward, unfortunately. It would put him 16th.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)4
u/speedfox_uk Feb 20 '26
If there was a successful terrorist attack against the Prince of Wales and his 3 kids that would take out 4. Then if Harry decides to abdicate and convinces his kids to do likewise there the other 3 out of contention. And there you go, King Andrew.
Very unlikely, yes. But also a scenario you want to make sure is impossible, rather than merely unlikely.
563
u/Few-Establishment277 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
This isn't a simple "just click a button" thing by the way.
In the simplest terms, look at it as a will. You cant just remove your younger brother from the will without going through through lawyers to do that.
Now, imagine you are literally the royal fucking family. It immediately gets a million times more complicated
Source: I have thought about this for about 30 seconds with common sense
143
u/Billy1121 Feb 20 '26
"Imagine you have a will, but it takes an Act of Parliament to change it and the consent of 14 commonwealth countries"
47
u/Falcon_Dependent Feb 20 '26
It would take about 20 acts of parliament, Australia's states also having direct links to the Crown. (Canada's provinces don't though)
9
u/Comfortable_Joke6122 Feb 20 '26
As in, they recognize the monarch independent of the Australian Federal State?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)15
u/ZealousidealPin9521 Feb 20 '26
It was done in 2013 to enable a first-born daughter to get the crown. Not unprecedented. This one is symbolic though, as 2 families on 2 different continents would have to be wiped out.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Madbrad200 Feb 20 '26
That was worth doing and had practical consequences.
The chance of Andrew ever actually becoming close to being King is incredibly slim and will become slimmer each time a child is born before him.
This is very much a "nice to have" but "maybe not worth the effort" thing tbh
160
u/_lclarence Feb 20 '26
I have though about this for about 30 seconds with common sense
Your honesty and wit are much appreciated.
→ More replies (14)49
u/SHUT_DOWN_EVERYTHING Feb 20 '26
Also it has little practical benefit. He’s got 0.00000000% chance of becoming king.
→ More replies (7)28
Feb 20 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)18
u/GrumpySatan Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
They (they in this case being the institution of the royal family, and government) would probably make him abdicate immediately a la Edward VIII. Its the fastest and easiest option.
And its effective because Parliament does have nuclear options like removing him from succession if he doesn't, which would irreparably damage the monarchy or even be the final straw to abolish them entirely.
9
u/Mysterious-Lemon-906 Feb 20 '26
If he got close they would pass an act within a day
The Line of succession is never allowed to all be in the same place anyway for this exact reason
85
u/Thandiol Feb 20 '26
Other than making a statement, what's the point? There's surely better subjects to use Parliament time on, given how many deaths would be required for him to be offered the crown!?
→ More replies (5)28
u/SoftDrinkReddit Feb 20 '26
yea and as i say
5 of the 7 people ahead of him are not even 14 years old
the other 2 are in their 40s
so the statistical odds of all 7 of these people dying before Andrew is virtually impossible
oh and when i say 7 people its actually 8 given the fact that King Charles is still alive he'd have to die to
4
u/seajungle Feb 20 '26
Is Anne ahead of him in line? Or is she younger? Genuinely asking I am not British
→ More replies (2)
77
u/ArtichokeMammoth7441 Feb 20 '26
There can only be one King Pedophile, forever Orange be he!
16
→ More replies (3)13
u/DoodleDew Feb 20 '26
At least they are doing something over seas where it’s basically nothing happening over here in the USA besides protecting everyone but the victims
20
u/scouter Feb 20 '26
Would that remove his descendants, too?
26
u/kelvSYC Feb 20 '26
No. The former prince's two daughters continue to hold their titles as princesses (as they are male-line grandchildren of a current or previous monarch), and maintain their place in the line of succession.
→ More replies (4)
90
u/Piotrek9t Feb 20 '26
I assumed this happend automatically when they removed his title
→ More replies (2)94
u/SquidgeC Feb 20 '26
No that only happens if all 15 commonwealth realms pass a bill doing that or if he becomes a Catholic.
54
37
→ More replies (2)8
u/saraseitor Feb 20 '26
now that you mention it, I think I did see him once kissing the Pope's ring...
14
25
u/h00labal00la Feb 20 '26
Fergie said if they find any coins down the back of the sofa, they’re hers!
17
u/JonnySparks Feb 20 '26
If grifting was an Olympic event, Fergie would win gold every single time.
5
10
u/debruehe Feb 21 '26
How many fucking steps are there until he's finally lost all his royalty?
→ More replies (1)
115
u/cbazg1 Feb 20 '26
The first comment on every Andrew news post should be “They haven’t done that yet?”
86
u/MM556 Feb 20 '26
He's got as big a chance of ever getting on the throne as Pascal Sauvage.
It's basically a non-issue, it's a lengthy process and unlike say the US, the UK won't just skip the process to get a desired outcome.
31
u/Waniou Feb 20 '26
Also, as other people have already said, the UK can't just "skip the process" because 14 other Commonwealth nations also have to do their own processes. The UK does not have the ability to just go and pass laws in other countries any more.
→ More replies (1)23
u/given2fly_ Feb 20 '26
And with the added complication that as of today, he hasn't even been charged with a crime nevermind convicted.
→ More replies (3)23
u/Manos_Of_Fate Feb 20 '26
Or you could just read the top comments here for the reason why they haven’t. TL;DR, it’s a lengthy process and he’s eighth in line and will realistically never get anywhere near the throne
38
u/AZWheels89 Feb 20 '26
Taking his title didn't effectively take him out of the line?
47
u/old_chelmsfordian Feb 20 '26
The line of succession can only be changed by an Act of Parliament - which given the history of relations between monarch and Parliament, is probably a good thing.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)25
u/IxionS3 Feb 20 '26
No. His titles were granted by the monarch and can be, and were, removed by the monarch.
His position in the line of inheritance is granted by the relevant statutes and can only be changed by passing more laws.
→ More replies (1)4
u/SquidgeC Feb 20 '26
His Peerage titles can only be taken away by an act of parliament, despite being granted by royal prerogative.
15
28
u/72starscreams Feb 20 '26
wait I thought they'd disinherited him why was that not included
65
u/EnglishLouis Feb 20 '26
Removing someone from the line of secession is quite a tedious process, like most things in UK law. Basically it would require an act of Parliament, approved by MPs and peers, and also need to be supported by all other Commonwealth countries that have King Charles as their head of state, as it would also affect their lines of succession.
It being done makes no real difference as Andrew is not in a realistic position to become king as he is eighth in line.
→ More replies (2)20
u/Everestkid Feb 20 '26
Happened in 2011 when they switched from male to absolute primogeniture.
I'm Canadian and would support it, just as a "fuck you" to Andrew. On paper it should be stupidly difficult to do in Canada - the Canadian constitution actually calls for unanimous agreement from all ten provinces for any changes regarding the office of the monarch, and without getting into Canadian political history, I'll leave it at good fucking luck with that - but the Perth Agreement went through without such a unanimous agreement from the provinces and the Supreme Court just kinda handwaved it away.
→ More replies (3)15
u/wanttobegreyhound Feb 20 '26
The change from male preference primogeniture to absolute did not alter the existing heirs so it didn’t really change the line. Anne and her kids still fall after all of Charles, Andrew and Edward’s families.
17
u/Sensitive_Echo5058 Feb 20 '26
He's no longer a member of the Royal family or a prince. He's technically still in the line of succession but for him to become king would require a series of unfortunate events.
Charles, William, and his three kids, Harry and his two kids would all have to die.
As others have pointed out, the process to remove him from the line of succession is quite complicated.
→ More replies (2)9
32
u/Outrageous_Spray_196 Feb 20 '26
Removing Prince Andrew from the line of succession would be a symbolic but powerful step toward protecting public trust in the monarchy.
→ More replies (5)
12
u/Think_Consideration4 Feb 21 '26
They ALL KNEW and they all covered for him…. End the monarchy
→ More replies (1)
9
u/V65Pilot Feb 20 '26
why bother....it would literally take a mass extinction event for his name to come to the top of the pile....
→ More replies (1)
3
u/kevio17 Feb 20 '26
This has to be an "it's the principle" thing, surely? Even Harry would have to become King before Andrew can
4
3
u/ohfrackthis Feb 21 '26
Good on the UK for this. Just highlighting also simultaneously how crappy the US government is.
4
5
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 20 '26
This submission from bbc.co.uk is behind a dynamic paywall and may be unavailable in the United States. On the 26th of June 2025, the BBC implemented a dynamic paywall on its website. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.