The short answer is yes, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor can be removed from the line of succession. But don't expect it to happen with a simple stroke of King Charles’s pen. While the King can—and already has—stripped his brother of his HRH style, military affiliations, and even the "Prince" title in October 2025, the line of succession is a different beast entirely. It’s governed by law, not just royal whim.
To actually strike Andrew from the list of heirs, it takes an Act of Parliament. We’re talking about a full-blown legislative process that involves not just Westminster, but potentially 14 other countries. It’s a constitutional sledgehammer that hasn't been used since the 1930s.
The legal reality of the eighth in line
Right now, the man formerly known as Prince Andrew sits at number eight. He follows Prince William, William’s three children, Prince Harry, and Harry’s two children. Even after his February 2026 arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, his place in the queue remains legally protected by the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Bill of Rights 1689.
These ancient laws dictate that the Crown descends through the Protestant line of Sophia of Hanover. To change who gets a seat at that table, the UK government has to pass new primary legislation. The King can't just "fire" a family member from the succession because the succession doesn't belong to the family; it belongs to the State.
Why a royal decree isn't enough
You might wonder why Charles can take away a house like Royal Lodge but can't take away a spot in line. It comes down to Royal Prerogative versus Statutory Law.
- Royal Prerogative: This covers titles (Duke, Prince), honors, and military appointments. The King has the "prerogative" to grant or withdraw these.
- Statutory Law: The line of succession is baked into the UK’s unwritten constitution via specific acts. Only Parliament can amend or repeal these acts.
If the government moves forward with the "Andrew Bill"—which ministers like Darren Jones and Chris Bryant have signaled is "on the table"—it would likely look similar to the His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. That was the last time the line was surgically altered to remove Edward VIII and any future children he might have.
The Commonwealth headache
Here’s where it gets messy. King Charles III isn't just the King of the UK. He’s the head of state for 14 other "realms," including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, any change to the succession requires the "assent" of all these parliaments.
Basically, if the UK wants to boot Andrew, they have to coordinate a global legislative dance. Australian PM Anthony Albanese has already signaled he’s ready to sign off, and New Zealand’s Christopher Luxon is on board too. But coordinating 15 different governments to pass near-identical laws is a logistical nightmare. It’s why the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (which ended male-preference primogeniture) took years to actually come into force.
What about Beatrice and Eugenie
A massive point of contention is whether removing Andrew also removes his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. In the 1936 abdication, Edward VIII’s potential children were specifically excluded to prevent any rival claims later.
However, Beatrice and Eugenie are well-liked and have done nothing wrong. Most constitutional experts believe any new law would be "person-specific." It would leapfrog Andrew but leave his descendants exactly where they are. If Andrew is removed, Beatrice would simply move up from ninth to eighth.
The Counsellor of State problem
One of the biggest reasons for the current push is Andrew’s status as a Counsellor of State. These are the top people in the line of succession who can legally step in for the King if he’s incapacitated.
Even though Andrew is a "non-working royal," he technically remains on that list because he's still in the line of succession. Removing him from the succession automatically solves the Counsellor of State problem. It’s a "tidying up" exercise that the Palace reportedly won't resist. Sources suggest the King "won't stand in the way" of Parliament’s will.
Key milestones for removal
- Police Investigation: The government has been clear—no law will be tabled until the current police probe into the Epstein-linked misconduct allegations is finished.
- Drafting the Bill: A specific "Succession to the Crown (Amendment) Bill" would need to be written.
- Commonwealth Consent: Formal letters of "request and consent" from the 14 realms.
- Royal Assent: The King signs the bill into law.
Is it actually going to happen
Honestly, the momentum is higher than it’s ever been. The Liberal Democrats are pushing hard, and the Starmer government isn't saying no. Before, the argument was that he's "too far down the line" for it to matter. But with the 2026 arrest and the national security concerns being raised by MPs like Tom Tugendhat, the "risk" of Andrew ever being near the throne is being treated as a live political issue.
If you're following this, keep an eye on the conclusion of the Thames Valley Police investigation. That’s the starting gun. Once that's over, expect the most significant shift in royal law in nearly a century.
To stay updated on the legislative progress, you can track the official UK Parliament Bills page or the House of Commons Library briefings, which are currently being updated to reflect the 2026 constitutional shifts.
