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.

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.

No he doesn't. They've been formally removed by the King.

The process being a lot less complicated and difficult than some believed.

This gets complex, becuase different roles/titles have different statuses and removal processes.

Some have been actually removed. Others (which are the ones presumably that you read about being hard to remove), really are hard to remove.

There was a deliberate sleight of hand to handle the remaining ones, giving the impression of being stripped without actually doing that. It’s also pretty arcane because there isn’t much precedent.

But ‘removed from the roll of the peerage’ does not mean removing a peerage.

Andrew is still Duke of York, as only parliament can remove or extinguish a peerage and it has not done so. The ‘roll’ is the sleight of hand. It is about who can be called by certain styles in certain documents.

It was the fudge that worked for what was required.

But Andrew is still a duke. If hereditaries were still in the Lords he would still be a voting member, for example. If he has a son, his son in time will become a duke.

He’s still a counselor of state, too. The fudge there was to add two more (Anne and Edward) so that Andrew would never need to be called upon. But he can only be removed as a counselor of state by parliament, and he has not been so.

Maybe a similar fudge could be come up with for the Line of Succession, whereby he’s not ‘referred to as’ in the LoS. He would still become king though if everyone else dies.

And changing the LoS is far harder than just passing UK legislation (at least if you want to avoid splitting the line).

Parliament need to act and remove everything. He’s a revolting oaf, his jowl scowl makes me feel sick.

Changing LOS is not that hard, the Succession to the Crown Act changed in 2013 from male-preference to absolute primogeniture, it was fast-tracked so that regardless of the sex of the first born, they would inherit the throne regardless. It also means that Louis won't ever overtake Charlotte by virtue of having been born male. Honestly these things are not as complicated to change as people make out - we don't have a constitution for a start - and it's interesting how things can be progressed rapidly when there is a vested interest for the nominating changer.

Do you think Mountbatten ‘interfered with’ anyone in the wider royal family household? Or behaved inappropriately at times?

So many of them seem to have ropey boundaries and morals, ill-advised friendships and peculiar relationships. It must come from somewhere.

Interesting comment from the lawyer of one of the victims, claiming the title-stripping process has been counterproductive.

Edwards said that stripping Andrew of his titles has allowed the former prince to maintain that he has no money and no ability to provide compensation, and to "allow these women to just suffer".
"So the idea that the Royal Family so far cares about the victims, wanted to make things right - what they have done by simply stripping Prince Andrew of his titles and nothing more, has had the exact opposite effect of what they claim they are trying to do," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clymxxlm3xzo

In how many parliaments did that have to happen?

Do you think getting round to abolishing male primogeniture in 2013 was fast?

I have no idea @TheAutumnCrow

I find the Windsors dark and disturbing .

Mountbatten's crimes were covered up for decades. I remember posters mentioning it here and being piled on by royalists. Threatened with being sued ! They don’t try that any more but that is part of the cover up. Threaten those who speak out . But let some of the truth come out re the dead - eg Mountbatten / Elizabeth in order to distract from the current snouts in the trough .

No doubt in a decade or two more will come out

I noted a man asking William in a public place about Andrew and William’s protection told him to stop .
That’s our ‘constitutional monarchy’. Nothing constitutional about it .

@Ukisgaslit I do think that social media and especially YouTube Tube channels will finish the reputation of the royal family (same in Norway), and bit by bit the constitutional monarchy will be required by parliament to evolve into something that’s for ceremonial purposes only - before the eventual, inevitable, vote that establishes a republic.

But I won’t see a republic in my lifetime, I don’t think. And we’re stuck with Charles.

However I think we will see members of the royal family being increasingly raked over the coals in the media (particularly sm & YT) which will cause them to either up their games or walk away.

A Select Committee is looking this year at the constitution and running of the Duchies - that’s a start.

I can recommend Andrew Lownie's book on the Mountbattens. Yes, they did some good, especially Edwina but my god, were they sleazy. At one time Edwina had 17 lovers running them concurrently and then there was Dickie with his penchant for young buys wearing uniform. And this was Charles's mentor and surrogate father! He influenced Charles greatly.

One parliament. The first reading of the bill in the House of Lords took place on 29 January 2013. The bill passed second reading on 14 February 2013 and was reviewed by committee on 28 February 2013. The report stage was on 13 March 2013. The bill was passed at the third reading on 22 April. You don’t think that’s quick?! I mean the fact that it took us until the 21st century to get rid of male succession privilege is obviously NOT quick in the grand scheme of things and should have happened decades sooner. But a new bill being passed in under three months? Yes, that’s bloody quick.

If he were in that position the legislation to stop it happening could be triggered then.

Exactly - this is the problem with monarchy, you get who you get.

That's the way a hereditary monarchy works though it is absolutely nothing about worth or what they deserve it is simply about an accident of birth.which makes the whole thing crazy anyway

I don't think it's worth wasting money or time to change the law when he will never become king and his reputation is already in tatters.

Six national parliaments had to pass legislation, with nine more agreeing that their constitutions meant they didn’t need to. Every state in Australia (six) had to pass a law separately. Canada went through the courts on a constitutional point.

So that’s at least 12 legislatures that needed to act.

The main reason it took until 2013 was that all those parties needed to agree it was the right move and a priority. That only happened after Will & Kate married becuase they knew the rule was almost certainly going to be invoked imminently in a way that would determine who the future monarch is.

With Andrew 8th in the line and falling, I can’t see the same situation arising that would create consensus for immediate action. Eg, any non-royalist govt in any of those legislatures could object on the grounds that they aren’t going to waste their legislative time tinkering with a system that shouldn’t exist, to save the blushes of a foreign monarchy. (Again, assuming the UK doesn’t want to split the LoS).

As PP said that change was much simpler because it wasn't retrospective so only applied to any children born in the future. That's whybit didn't affect Princess Anne's status. It didn't affect anyone already living
It would take a lot of parliamentary time including lawyers, civil servants and advisers to do something that will have no impact whatsoever

Glad to see that the government are apparently considering removing him from the line of succession and that the Australian PM has said he’ll back it. 🤞

I personally think we’re fine with the idea these people are special because of their ancestry or we aren’t, you can’t really pick and chose the ones you want. Personally I think the royal family is archaic and should be abolished at the first opportunity. But I appreciate I’m in the minority. There would have to be a catastrophe for Andrew to become King, and there’s precedent for parliament to force abdication anyway. I don’t think it’s a good use of parliamentary time.