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 possibility is so remote that I’m happy to treat it as fiction. Kind Hearts and Coronets meets The Gashleycrumb Tinies.

You may as well ask what was the point in removing his titles? They were only honorary, and nothing material has changed with him losing them in disgrace. He's still the son of a queen, so whether his official title is Prince or Mr, none of that changes. It IS seen as an honour and a privilege to be high in the line of succession, even though, practically, you'll never get to the top seat.

This is always the problem with having a hereditary monarchy, rather than a democracy, though. If Charles had died in an accident or from an injury/illness before 1982, we would now all be subjects of King Andrew - and then, even if categorically indisputable evidence had emerged of him doing the most appalling crimes, he could only be prosecuted and imprisoned in the name of... King Andrew.

That said, I do agree that he's the fall guy in this and there are many people connected to him who are guilty of all that he has been accused of and far more. Imagine if we theoretically ended up with a King who had counted at least two prolific predatory paedophiles amongst his closest friends, and spoken out passionately in support of them, eh?! There's a reason why JS was only allowed to be officially exposed once he was dead and incapable of taking anybody else down with him.

It’s exactly the same process they went through in 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated - it’s basically a formality that doesn’t need debate. They could dig out the old motions to use as templates, update the references, have a vote in each relevant parliament and be done. Whole thing could be done and dusted in a few weeks, and most of that time would be waiting for a spare half hour to schedule the motions in each location.

Removing him would require legislation. The legislation could be written to remove others in the future, I think for some people that is the wanted outcome.

I don’t think we can have it both ways. We just know more about them these days, but we’ve never been allowed to pick and choose any of the rest of them. I doubt he’s the worst we’ve ever had in the lineup.

Fiction or not, it's still shitty to enjoy imagining the deaths of children.

We can though, and we have. And not just Edward VIII.

My only concern is if it's worth it.

Edward VIII was a very different situation.

First of all, he actually was King.
Secondly, there was something in it for him and he was able to say it was his decision and leave with some dignity.

Removing Andrew is very different, because he's not going to do it without a fight. He's not going to sign those papers himself. He's going to have to forcibly removed from the succession.

And if he was King, or even next in line, it would be worth the effort

Right now, it's not.

I assume its the principle

And if there wasn't wars and genocides going on, I'd think fair enough

But right now, parliment has more important things to worry about than principle

I completely agree that the time and money it would take to specifically remove Andrew from the line of succession would not be worth it. Even though I also agree that he would hate it and since he's unlikely to properly face criminal justice for everything he has done, without the issue of cost etc I would want him to face any punishment possible.

However, if we intend to continue with a hereditary monarchy, paid by tax payers and with power as head of state (even if this is rarely used), I think the process should be updated to include some safeguarding measures that would be applied to anyone who may take the throne in future. As a minimum, I would argue that anyone who would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults should not be allowed to be Head of State. This could be applied in a similar way to safer recruiting in schools- if a minor issue years ago is flagged (eg driving conviction) a panel could decide whether they are safe to continue. For something more serious (I don't know, maybe having close links to know sex traffickers, credible accusations of sex offences, misuse of a public office) this would automatically disqualify them. Personally I think the monarchy should end but I know that I am in the minority and can't see the British Public supporting that change so I think it would be worthwhile building in some safeguarding. Having seen what Trump has got away with in the US, I don't think we can just rely on 'no-one would let that happen'.

I hope Parliament are capable of carrying out several duties at once. I'd remove him from succession. It's a privilege and shouldn't be given to someone who had close links to a pedophile and see trafficker. His actions are abhorrent and he hasn't any accountability or remorse.

Isn't the issue about who can be a councillor of state in the event that the head of state is temporarily incapable. This is normally the monarch's spouse and the next four people in line who are over 21.

A couple of years ago Princess Anne and Prince Edward were added to the list of people able to fulfil the role, largely in response to issues with Harry and Andrew, but Andrew and Beatrice are still technically able to act as councillors of state.

Andrew and Beatrice are still technically able to act as councillors of state.

That raises the question of Beatrice's and Eugenie's position, were their father removed from the line of succession. Would they retain their positions or would they, and presumably their 4 children, also be removed? Maybe if their father were removed they might voluntarily remove themselves as they are so far down and it would improve their lives not being the subjects of so much media scrutiny.

Agreed OP

I dont know why people go on about the royals so much, they're not in charge, they dont have any real power, I couldnt give a shit about them for better or for worse. It would make no odds to the functioning of this country if they were disbanded today except we would have a president, more power and prestige for someone like Trump.

What I am concerned about is our links with the EU are in tatters, we kowtow to America and its madman, our trade, our industry, our social systems, our education system our health care and our housing, all gone to shit. None of that is connected one bit to Andrew and whatever he did or didnt do.

No, I don't care. He's no longer acting as a representative of the state so that is surely the most important thing, plus the shameful removal of his titles and his arrest. Something horrific would have to happen to all of the Cambridge's before any of the others would have a shot.

I don’t care much but I suppose removing him is a symbolic gesture which makes clear how unacceptable his behaviour was.
(and also I’ve recently re-read Terry Pratchett’s Nation, in which a disease wipes out so many people in a counterfactual 19th C Britain that someone >130th in succession becomes king so I guess maybe better safe than sorry😂).
I would have hoped it would be a simple rubber stamping exercise with no objections and really nothing to debate.

It’s a status thing I suppose. Once he’s no longer eighth in line, he truly is a nobody. Also, whilst everyone knows the chances are he’ll never be King, by removing him, it means he definitely won’t ever get the opportunity.

Prachett wasn’t that far off ! The Coburg Gothas ( current lot ) were 65th in line when they took over

As for those saying ‘it’s a waste of time’ for Andrew to be removed - our unelected head of state family has been protecting Andrew for over a decade . Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor was in 2008. Pedophiles sex traffickers and their associates are at the heart of the state and that’s not important ?

Who says it is a long and costly process to remove him?That’s propaganda - anything to do with reforming the Windsors is described as ‘difficult’. It’s not - but saying so takes advantage of the inertia prevalent in this country.

I do agree that Andrew is being used as a distraction. A distraction from what the rest of the Windsors knew and when . Those questions need answers too .

Interesting point .

Ive seen similar arguments saying we should be calling Andrew - Prince Andrew as the removal of ‘Prince’ is an attempt to distance him from the rest of them .

Mountbatten , Saville, Epstein - prolific pedophiles and abusers and the Windsors closely linked to all of them.