What’s Next for Andrew After His Arrest? UK Government Weighs Plans to Strip Him of Succession Rights
The blue lights outside the Norfolk farmhouse looked like something from a crime drama, not a royal backdrop. Yet it was there, at a temporary bolthole far from palace balconies and Trooping the Colour, that Prince Andrew was led away by police and held for 11 hours on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Now the question hanging over Westminster and Buckingham Palace is not just what he might have done, but whether he should remain anywhere near the throne he once confidently orbited.
For all the legal complexity, the core choices are stark. Prince Andrew, eighth in line to succeed his brother King Charles III, could be quietly left where he is. He could be symbolically stripped of remaining roles, while technically still in the queue. Or Parliament could take the nuclear option and legislate to strike him out of the line of succession altogether, with the agreement of the other 14 Commonwealth realms where Charles is head of state.
At the moment, that last option is no longer whispered. It is being openly discussed.
Prince Andrew, Parliament And The Question Of Who Can Be King
Government sources say officials, as per Daily Star, are drawing up proposals that would allow Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be removed from the line of succession once multiple police investigations into his conduct have concluded.
The move would require an Act of Parliament. Britain’s uncodified constitution does not allow a monarch, even a determined one, to simply rub out an heir by royal whim. Any law changing the rules of succession must also be agreed by the other realms, from Canada to Australia, which share the Crown.
Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, is already preparing the ground.
‘The most important thing right now is that the police be allowed to get on with their job, acting without fear or favor,’ he said. ‘But clearly this is an issue that Parliament is going to have to consider when the time is right, naturally the monarchy will want to make sure he can never become king.’
To recall, Andrew, who has already been stripped of his HRH style and military patronages, was arrested last week after the publication of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and financier whose web of connections has haunted the prince for years. He has long denied any misconduct over his relationship with Epstein and has not directly addressed the latest allegations.
Police are continuing to search Royal Lodge, his former home in Windsor Great Park, as part of their inquiries. Images of vans loading items from a royal residence would once have been unthinkable. Now they barely shock.
King Charles himself has tried to sound above the fray, but left little wriggle room. In a tightly worded 104‑word statement, King Charles said ‘the law must take its course’ and pledged the royal household’s ‘full and wholehearted support and co-operation’ with investigators.
Public Verdict On Prince Andrew Turns From Cold To Arctic
If Downing Street is weighing the constitutional mechanics, the public appears to have already made up its mind.
A YouGov poll found that 82 percent of Britons think Prince Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. Just 6 percent believe he should stay. That is not a wobble in support. It is a rout.
Politicians are following, some nervously, while others with undisguised relish.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski called the situation ‘pretty awful’ and demanded a sweeping statutory inquiry into how powerful institutions handle alleged crimes by their own.
‘We obviously need to wait for the legal process to make its way,’ he said on a visit to Gorton in Greater Manchester, ‘but I would say we really need a full statutory inquiry into public figures from institutions, where crimes have been committed – if they’ve been committed – what we knew, what other people in those institutions knew and, where necessary, to make sure that the appropriate people are removed.’
Then he went further than most Westminster voices would currently dare, arguing that the monarchy itself has become indefensible.
‘The monarchy are doing a pretty good job in themselves of not having their proudest moments over various issues we’ve seen in the last couple of years and, when the public are ready to have that national conversation about the monarchy, I think issues like this certainly don’t help the monarchy’s case.’
On Labour’s benches, the tone is cooler but no kinder. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central, was blunt.
From the public evidence already available, she argued, it is ‘clear that his position as a Counsellor of State and with succession rights are removed, as well as all titles’. She added that she trusted Parliament could pass the legislation needed and welcomed reports that the King was willing to assist.
Richard Burgon, the left-wing Labour MP for Leeds East, used Andrew’s arrest to press a broader republican argument. Writing on X, he called for an independent investigation into what the royal family knew about Andrew’s ties to Epstein and declared that ‘it’s time for a serious national debate about abolishing the monarchy.’
‘Even if you disagree,’ he added, ‘we should discuss the role of hereditary privilege in our democracy.’
For now, Prince Andrew remains where he is on the succession list. Eighth in theory, nowhere in practice. The police are still combing through evidence. Palace officials are quietly gaming out worst‑case scenarios. And somewhere in Whitehall, lawyers are working out how you erase a prince from a centuries‑old order of inheritance without blowing up the Crown itself.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
