Government considers removing Andrew from royal line of succession

The government is examining legislation that would remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession, senior ministers and officials told the BBC. The proposal—being discussed with Buckingham Palace—would permanently bar him from ever becoming monarch, and ministers say it is contingent on the conclusion of ongoing police inquiries. Andrew remains eighth in line despite being stripped of his royal titles, including the style “prince”, last October amid scrutiny of his links to Jeffrey Epstein. Thames Valley Police has been conducting searches at Royal Lodge, the Windsor property associated with him, while other forces weigh possible inquiries.

Key takeaways

• The government has discussed an act of Parliament to remove Andrew from the succession; ministers say it should wait until police inquiries conclude.
• Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is currently eighth in line to the throne and had his titles removed in October 2023.
• Thames Valley Police—reported to have arrested him—has been searching Royal Lodge, with more than 20 vehicles seen at one point and searches expected to continue until Monday.
• Any change would require approval by both Houses of Parliament, royal assent from the King and backing from 14 Commonwealth realms where Charles III is head of state.
• Precedent: the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 altered succession rules; the last parliamentary removal was in 1936 after Edward VIII’s abdication.
• Party positions vary: Liberal Democrats and SNP have signalled support for legislation; some Labour MPs are sceptical about the necessity given Andrew’s remoteness from the throne.
• Senior ministers including Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the measure is the “right thing to do” while urging the police probe be allowed to run its course.

Background

The question of altering the succession arises against a backdrop of sustained public scrutiny of Andrew’s conduct and his links to the deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein. In late 2023, under public and political pressure, he was stripped of several royal styles and titles, and he stepped back from public duties in 2019 after the controversy surrounding a BBC interview. Constitutional change to the succession is rare and legally complex: past reforms, such as the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act, required agreement across the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms that share the monarch.

Removing an individual from the line of succession would require primary legislation passed by both Houses of the UK Parliament and assent by the sovereign. Because Charles III is head of state in multiple independent countries—including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica—those governments would need to agree to treaty or legislative changes as well. Historically, the most recent parliamentary change to exclude a person was in 1936 after Edward VIII’s abdication; more recently, 2013 reforms removed some religious and gender-based barriers for those born after 28 October 2011.

Main event

On BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions programme, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said ministers had been working with Buckingham Palace on a plan to ensure Andrew could not become King, describing the step as “the right thing to do.” Pollard said the measure should command cross-party support but stressed it should only proceed once active police inquiries conclude. Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray cautioned that questions in this area are “quite complicated” and again emphasised the need for police work to finish before parliamentary action.

Thames Valley Police, the force reported to have arrested Andrew, has been conducting searches at Royal Lodge in Windsor; the BBC noted more than 20 vehicles were seen near the property at one point, though it could not verify whether every vehicle was connected to the inquiry. The force is understood to be continuing searches into the coming days, and a former government adviser warned that additional forces considering investigations could cause the matter to expand and take considerable time to resolve.

Political responses have been mixed. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey urged police to be allowed to complete their work and accepted that Parliament will need to consider the question in due course. The SNP’s Westminster leader said his party would back legislative action if required. Several Labour MPs who are critical of the institution of the monarchy nevertheless questioned whether formal removal from the line is necessary given the low practical likelihood of Andrew inheriting the throne.

Buckingham Palace has not issued a public comment on the government’s deliberations. Constitutional lawyers and historians have noted the palace and government share an interest in insulating the Crown from reputational fallout, while also needing to preserve constitutional propriety and the involvement of Commonwealth partners.

Analysis & implications

Legally, removing a person from the succession by statute is straightforward in principle but demanding in practice. An act of Parliament would have to be drafted, debated and approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, then given royal assent. Because the Crown is shared with 14 independent countries, those governments would normally be consulted; some could require their own parliamentary or executive processes, adding diplomatic and legislative complexity.

Politically, the proposal presents a trade-off between immediate reputational management for the monarchy and the rule-of-law principle that the criminal justice process should be allowed to run without political interference. Ministers emphasise waiting for police conclusions to avoid prejudicing investigations, but public pressure and parliamentary sentiment may push the timetable. Cross-party backing is likely necessary for a smooth passage, but differences in emphasis—some prioritising legal process, others symbolic separation of the Crown from controversy—could produce lengthy debate.

Internationally, securing unanimous assent from the 14 realms is unpredictable. Some governments might view a unilateral UK statute as insufficient to change the succession in their jurisdictions, prompting bilateral or multilateral legal steps. Even if removal is politically achievable in Westminster, coordinating legal changes across multiple jurisdictions could delay implementation, reducing the immediate reputational effect.

Comparison & data

This comparison shows that prior succession changes required either clear constitutional events (abdication) or coordinated reform across multiple jurisdictions. Any contemporary legislative route would therefore face legal, diplomatic and political hurdles and is unlikely to be immediate even if agreed in principle.

Reactions & quotes

Officials and politicians framed their comments around the need to balance the integrity of the monarchy with deference to ongoing criminal investigations.

“It’s the right thing to do,”

Luke Pollard, Defence Minister

Pollard used those words to argue for permanent exclusion regardless of the investigation’s findings, while also saying work with Buckingham Palace should wait for police conclusions. His phrasing signals ministerial intent but also an insistence on not interfering with investigators.

“Police should be allowed to get on with their job, acting without fear or favour,”

Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat leader

Sir Ed Davey stressed the priority of an unimpeded investigation and accepted that Parliament will have a role to play once evidential and legal questions are clearer.

“If legislation is required, we would support removing him from the line of succession,”

Stephen Flynn, SNP Westminster leader

The SNP leader’s statement indicates cross-party appetite in parts of Westminster, but other MPs cautioned that the practical chance of Andrew ascending the throne is remote, complicating arguments about necessity versus symbolism.

Unconfirmed

• Whether all vehicles observed at Royal Lodge were connected to police activity remains unverified by independent sources.
• It is not yet confirmed which, if any, additional police forces will open parallel investigations beyond Thames Valley Police.
• There is no public timetable for when any draft legislation would be introduced to Parliament or how long cross-realm consultations might take.
• The palace has not formally confirmed the substance or scope of discussions with the government about legislative options.

Bottom line

Ministers are actively discussing a statutory route to ensure Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could not succeed to the throne, but they frame any move as contingent on the outcome of ongoing police investigations. The plan would address reputational risk to the monarchy, yet it raises constitutional, diplomatic and political challenges because the Crown is shared with other independent realms and because primary legislation and cross-realm agreement would likely be required.

Even with ministerial and some parliamentary support, the practical effect of any statute would depend on careful legal drafting and international coordination—making a rapid resolution unlikely. For now, the key developments to watch are the progress of police inquiries, any formal legislative proposals in Westminster, and responses from the 14 Commonwealth governments that share the monarchy.

Sources

• BBC News — UK public broadcaster (reporting on ministerial statements, police activity and parliamentary reactions)