Plans to formally remove Andrew from the line of succession may seem decisive, but according to a former attorney general, they are probably more fantasy than feasibility.
Following Andrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, discussions reportedly began in Downing Street about the possibility of removing him from the order of succession entirely.
Although he is currently ranked eighth behind the Prince of Wales, his three sons, Prince Harry and Harry’s two sons are ministers, are said to be considering whether a clean constitutional break is necessary.
Defense Minister Luke Pollard was one of the first senior Labor figures to publicly back the idea, arguing it would be “the right thing to do”, although only once the investigation has concluded.
speaking in GB News, Sir Michael Ellis, former Attorney General of England and Wales, dismissed the proposal as constitutionally flawed and politically unwise.
Altering the succession is not the sole decision of Westminster. Any change would require agreement not only from the UK Parliament, but also from the other 14 Commonwealth realms where the monarch remains head of state.
Beyond that, Australian states and Canadian provinces would also need to pass corresponding legislation.
The last time such an international legislative change took place was more than a decade ago, when reforms modernized succession rules and removed restrictions related to the marriage of Roman Catholics.
Sir Michael suggested that repeating that effort for Andrew would be disproportionate, particularly given the slim likelihood of him ever taking the throne.
He even referenced the classic black comedy Kind Hearts and Coronets, in which he said that only a wildly improbable chain of events would make Andrew sovereign.
