Andrew and the line of succession

[RFamilyQuestion]

I’ve just finished reading Entitled. Not an enjoyable read but I am glad I got through it.

It’s left me feeling really angry that Andrew isn’t really being held to account other than losing his titles which doesn’t go far enough. It seems unlikely he’ll be convicted for his crimes.

He is still 8th in line to the throne. As unlikely as it is that he would ever be King, I think he should officially be removed from the line of succession. Yes it needs an act of parliament from what I’ve read and apparently involves complexities due to the commonwealth, but I don’t think these things should stop it being done. Whilst he is still 8th in the line of succession, he still has some sort of status which he loves but doesn’t deserve.

Massive waste of time really. More likely to effect his children/grandchildren (who have done nothing wrong) than him.

If something was to happen to William, Harry and all five of their children maybe!

Well that’s exactly the point, isn’t it. Are you volunteering to examine the legislative agenda of six different countries and all Australian states to tell them their local view of what’s a political priority is wrong and actually they could just drop X, Y, Z? Their answer will be, at worst, piss off, and at best, yes, but this costs political capital and time and effort. What can the UK offer us to make it worth it? So now you are sending the UK ambassador out to find out how we can horse trade with the power brokers in each of these places…. for what?

So by that logic, IF Andrew was convicted of being a rapist, would you still leave him in the line of succession, or would it not be too much trouble then?

There is literally a photo of him, in a house, with the girl who accussed him - he tried to explain it and made himself look worse. There are witnesses who confirmed he was on Epstein island doing things with Virginia (watch the Netflix doc on Epstein). He then paid the victim a settlement rather than prove his innocence, and has now been shown to be emailing Maxwell asking if she'd found him 'new inappropriate friends'. In the Kings statement about Andrew losing titles he specifically said:

Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

This is a close as they can get to admitting it, if he was genuinely innocent they would not be including that in a statement.

But because he is the Kings brother, realistically he will never be prosecuted and sent to prison, the information in the public domain is as close to he could ever get being found guilty. So again, if he was a convicted rapist would you then say he needs removing from the LOS? because for most people he is already considered guilty of that crime.

I think if he were convicted it would be significantly easier to persuade all those legislatures to act, and significantly more demand from the public to do so, and significantly more reputational damage from not acting. So I think it would be a very different calculus.

(I dont think your implied logic of ‘well that won’t happen so we should just act as if it has’ makes sense. You can make any hypothetical make sense by imagining it’s a different one).

If he was convicted...

Perhaps all that will be needed is a law barring all those convicted of certain crimes from becoming monarch, rather than removing him in particular?

Yes it still would be too much trouble, because the chances of him ever becoming King are so unlikely there is no point in spending so much time and money (seriously the cost of legislating is prohibitive, you're talking probably millions of pounds, which could be spent on far better things).

If somehow 6 perfectly healthy much younger people dropped dead in the next 25 years, AND none of them had any other children in the intervening years (incredibly unlikely), so we had just crowed Queen Lilibet, with Andrew next in line, I might support Parliament drafting formal legislation then. But even if she died before it's not as though he'd actually end up king. The government would know public opinion would be too strong against him. Even 90 years ago with Edward VIII Parliament forced him to abdicate, and the RF have much less power/mystique now.

So I would prefer money, time and effort to be spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than just 'making a point.' Rather than making an example of one (highly unpleasant) individual we'd could have more police officers trained to investigate SA, public awareness campaigns, reduce trial waiting times, offer free therapy to victims, build more jails so the very small percentage of rapists who actually get convicted actually serve more than a few years, crack down on child SE, including indecent images, etc.

Currently Andrew, however loathsome he is, hasn't actually been convicted of anything. Even convicted paedophiles currently aren't all imprisoned - look at Huw Edwards. If we've got time and effort to fix anything, lets sort that first

British monachs throughout history have done much worse! Besides , as others have said unpleasant and entitled as he may be, he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law.

If he had a shred of decency ( I know , I know) he would voluntarily give up his place in the LOS and being a Counsellor of State.

I would never use the word innocent in relation to Andrew, even those who go through the court process aren't proved innocent, just found not guilty.
That said, I'd love him to go through the court process, because I think he'd end up in jail.

Also, there are many versions of innocent, as you say he's not been found guilty in the eyes of the law, so why has he paid money to a victim, been stripped of his titles and evicted from his home, been told to step back from any official duties etc.. etc.... it's because in the eyes of MORALITY he's guilty as sin, even the RF know it and have taken action (late and pathetic as their actions have been).

Someone mentioned he could voluntarily declare himself out of the LOS - is this true and if so, how is this not a mandatory requirement for him not being completely thrown out on his ear? it fixes the issue and saves the cost.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?That is the diametric opposite to how the law works!!
The fundamental principle our legal system is built on, is the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This man has not been questioned, let alone charged or convicted of ANYTHING yet. As i say i loathe the man, but anyone being tried by the media does not sit easy with me.

To everyone saying it doesn't matter because he'd never be King.
Have you never seen the film Kind Hearts and Coronets? 😲🤣

You are right - Andrew is still in the line of succession and the fuss and distraction over ‘removal of titles’ was mere window dressing .
His substantial position has not changed and the Windsors have no issue with Andrew . He’s not the only sex offender among their number . Mountbatten was ‘dear uncle Dickie ‘ to the Charles and a ‘profilic pedophile’ to the FBI

All this ‘it’s too complicated’ ‘it’s too expensive ’ to legislate - it’s all nonsense . But expect that to be the next royalist line of defence as calls for the removal of the lot of them grow louder.

As for the so called ‘realms’ the only one with possible complications is Canada and when the Windsors get the boot I’m sure they’ll manage to sort it lol .

He is never going to be tried in a court of law because he is allowed to be above the law, so talking about him being innocent until proven guilty is pointless because, unlike the majority of people who have enough evidence against them to prosecute, the CPS will not be okaying his arrest any time soon.

I think it could and should be done.

Why should a potential paedophile be allowed to remain anywhere at all in the line of succession? What sort of a message does that put across if he remains there, even if the chance of him actually coming to the throne is vanishingly small? It still gives him a status that almost no others have and that he certainly doesn't deserve.

But this is the problem with a monarchy. You can't pick and choose who is in. They are chosen by God, born above all the people. Rules do not apply.

Same with all the nonsense you used to read about how Charles should let the crown go straight to William as people liked him better. It isn't a popularity contest.

If we have monarchy we are stuck with a succession of people regardless of how they chose to behave. It would be more sensible to abolish it, but we need to be careful to consider a sensible constitution.

For those saying it is too complicated and time consuming, surely it would be worth it so that the public would know there is absolutely no way AMW can take the throne or step in as a CoS.
It’s all very well saying it would never happen but if there’s even the slightest chance , it must be stamped out .,

and todays further update on why this man should not be in the LOS:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d09qd6zn2o

when even the BBC are turning on royals it must be bad.

Can we remember that some people said it would be complicated and time consuming to physically strip AMW of his titles. It was the very opposite.

So, whilst I'm sure it'll take more than a day or two overall, I'm not convinced it would be as difficult to remove him from the line of succession as some are making out.

I can’t see the point. Being 8th in line is such a remote possibility that it is pretty much an irrelevance. Time, money, more (as if needed) press time spent on it, I can’t see how it’s in the public interest.

If we're talking about time and money we may as well look at the much bigger issue of how the Commons votes. Every time trundling through the aye or the no lobby, complete with all the ceremony, and compiling who's voted for what.

If they had electronic voting which they checked afterwards to see they'd been put in the correct list, it would free up many hours of time.

Then there'd be acres of time to get rid of this man completely.

I agree. This could be done if they wanted it done.

Another fundamental principle of law is that we are all equal under the law and are all subject to the Law. That doesnt apply to the RF either. Andrew will never go in front of a court, either as a witness or a defendant. If I was suspected of a crime and went to hide in my mums house, its likely the police would get a warrant to enter her house and arrest me. Because hecis a member ofvthe RF the only trial he will ever have is trial by media.
Personally I think leave him in the LoS a reminder of the kind of person we could have as King by right of birth.

Bumping this thread - still OK with this man being in the LOS?

If it's so hard to remove him, then the work should be done to change the process by which the LOS is managed, so that when future royals do bad things they can also be removed. Saying the process is too hard to manage means it should be changed, not ignored.

FBI says that they've now released about 3.5million of the 6million files/photo's they have - so only another 2.5 million files/photo's to come.

Well, the new information doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know, it's more fuel on the same fire, so my position that it would be a waste of taxpayer's money (unless everyone ahead of Lilibet in the LOS suddenly dropped dead) still stands.

Can we remember that some people said it would be complicated and time consuming to physically strip AMW of his titles. It was the very opposite.

But the titles that people said that about he wasn’t stripped of. He still holds them, but an announcement was made that he ‘will not use’ those styles.

If you’d be happy with an announcement from Andrew that he ‘will not become king’ then your logic holds, I guess.

Except that ‘the monarch never dies’, ie the heir becomes monarch the instant the old one dies, with no gap. He doesn’t get asked, it just happens. So it would have to be a pledge to abdicate. Is that what you had in mind?