To wonder why people care if Andrew is removed from the line of succession or not?

[Whatexcellentboiledpotatoes]

Why does it matter?

He is 8th.

7 people, all of them fit and healthy, and five of them children, would need to die for him to become King.

3 of these people live on one continent, four on another.

It's so incredibly unlikely to happen that I don't understand why people are calling for it or why anyone needs to waste time and energy making it happen when there's clearly more important things going on right now.

The whole things medieval @Whatexcellentboiledpotatoes so why not?

If you are 'not bothered' and think it 'doesn't matter' then why do you care if he IS removed from the line of succession?

I can't believe anyone has a problem with Andrew being removed from the line of succession. Of course he must be!

If Charles and William die before George reaches 18, Andrew is regent and would carry out the duties of King until George reaches 18. Charles has cancer, so not as remote as op is postulating.

Because, as I said several times, it's a waste of time, effort and money when there are much more important matters to attend to right now. I don't want parliament's attention diverted onto this.

You can't just pluck him out and be done with it. It's a 1000 year old institution. It's full of tedious complicated legal processes. It will take years.

No he's not, Harry is.

I have a problem with it. If you believe in a hereditary monarchy and that we must all bow and suck up to and pay for someone who's done nothing except emerge from the right vagina then so be it - its hereditary, you get what your given, you dont get to choose, God does (on the battlefield or the bedroom or wherever he works his ineffable will).

If you dont like that idea and you think we should choose, well then let's have a democracy instead.

This is a really interesting take and makes sense.

But then, what does the modern day battlefield look like? Could this be it?

Why not kill all the birds with one stone and remove all lines of succession?

Totally agree with @Hallamule if we have to have the bunch of freeloaders because the has some divine right, we can’t pick and choose them - otherwise it becomes a meritocracy and we should all be able to throw our hat in the ring. It’s shocking we still have a load of people who are somehow superior to us all because they were born to it, if that’s the criteria they cant then decide there’s additional criteria as well.

I'm totally with the OP on this.

Let's look at the reality. Two very unlikely specific sequences of events have to happen for Andrew to get near the throne.

1. An entire bloodline needs to be wiped out. So, the King, his 43 year old son, and all three of his son's children. Then whatever killed them needs to cross the Atlantic and also kill the King's other son and his two children. All of these people bar the King are fit and healthy. Most of them are extremely well guarded. Should this happen then yes, Andrew is next in line to be monarch.
2. We have five years and three months left until George is 18. In just over five years, for Andrew to be Regent, Charles needs to die (OK, he has cancer, so I'll give you that one as a possibility) then his fit and healthy 43 year old son needs to die, and then (because Harry, not Andrew, is next in line) Harry also needs to die OR refuse to come back to the UK. Should all this happen, Andrew becomes regent, for a short amount of time.

Andrew himself also needs to survive prison and survive whatever plague is wiping out his family.

Should either one of these sequences of unfortunate events happen and Andrew is still around himself to step up, the British public are EXTREMELY unlikely to sit back and allow it.

So I say we take our chances tbh and deal with it if it comes up. Which will be never.

It's not about thinking Andrew doesn't deserve to lose his place, it's simply about priorities.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on isn't there? You can't have a hereditary monarchy and then complain that someone doesn't meet the standard. The whole point is that there is no standard - you get who you get, and you get whoever thundered out of the previous one's cock or fanny.

If you don't like one of the cock-thunderers, you can't change the rules arbitrarily. It's either a good idea or it isn't.

Yes, exactly.

And what grounds do we even use to remove him?

He may have done something we don't like?
Do we not have innocent until proven guilty in this country? Can we now use this for other people? can we remove Charles because he had an affair? Harry because lots of people hate his wife? Where is the line?

OK, he needs a criminal conviction then.
Well, he hasn't got one yet. And anyway, if we use the criminal conviction line, do we remove Princess Anne also as she has one? What about future royals? If George gets a driving ban is he out? If Charlotte is arrested for possession of cannabis at uni, is she out?

He's bringing the Royal family into disrepute.
Oh come on, none of them would be left. They've all brought the royal family into disrepute at some point.

Don't get me wrong, as OP says, he's a piece of shite. But we're on dodgy ground if we start making up rules now.

And for practically no gain too.

No, you’re missing my point. It’s not that Andrew is likely to become King, and it’s not a ‘fuck you’, or not primarily. It’s just that it’s pure luck the lowest-grade piece of shit isn’t in the top job.because that how hereditary monarchy works. Anyone invested in preserving the monarchy doesn’t want the kowtowing element of the general public recognising that this is how it works — no choice, no quality control, just a roll of the dice.

I’d quite enjoy observing the series of accidents that made his succession a live question, tbh.

As other posters have pointed out, the monarchical system means you get what you get. It’s a lousy and embarrassing system in many ways but I doubt the GBP’s ability to frame another that would be preferable ( see Brexit).

That's not quite true, historically.

Kings have been chucked out, beheaded, had armies raised against them, sent into exile, made to pretend they were giving it up willingly in order to marry an American etc etc for hundreds of years.

You don't even have to kill them. James II was packed off to France or wherever and his daughter and son in law put in his place, just for being catholic.

But we generally wait until it's an actual issue and they are on the throne or very close to it, before we get rid of them.

Anything else would just be a waste of time.

It's actually not strictly true that it's determined by whatever chuff you came out of.

Parliament firmly established way back in the 1600s that it's determined by parliamentary agreement.

They made this extremely clear, first by fighting an entire civil war against Charles I and executing him and then by removing James II from the throne, declaring it vacant, even though he was still very much alive, with a healthy living son, and declaring it was his, and just offering it to his daughter Mary and her husband.

You absolutely can, and should be able to, remove unsuitable people from the line of succession.

However, even though this was established in the 1600s, it is no longer the 1600s and there's now a commonwealth and a long and tedious processes to go through.

And it just isn't worth it for someone that's never going to get there.

I’d quite enjoy observing the series of accidents that made his succession a live question, tbh

Well that's kind of shitty, since five of them are kids.

And it is a punishment to him. He's massively keen on pomp and circumstance and being given his due titles, he would hate it so much and frankly he deserves that sting.

Erm, do you realise the majority of people in the line of succession between The King and his brother Andrew are children? The youngest being just 4 years old?

And that the other two people are the fathers of these children?

Surely you don't actually mean you would enjoy observing them all die?

Because if you do, it says more about you than them.

I agree.

He’s not going to be king. Even if they did all die, he’s not going to be king.

I’d be in favour of removing the monarchy as a whole. But while they’re here, I see no point wasting time faffing around the edges.

I don't think that's necessarily the case now, didn't Charles make changes to the list of those who can be in charge if he were incapacitated, at the moment wouldn't Harry be Regent before Andrew, he's higher up the Line of Succession, another thought not worth contemplating!

He is unlikely ever to face conventional justice for his actions.

By all accouts of his giant ego, the succession and titles mean a LOT to him. I suppose there is some small satisfaction in removing them given that he will face little else.

Yes, it would be Harry.

But there's only 5 years and 3 months left until George is 18 any way. Even losing both Charles and William in that time seems pretty unlikely.

He hasn't been scapegoated. They all want locking up including him.

‘Forelock tiggers’