Could former Prince Andrew be removed from royal line of succession?

Playing null of undefined

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor released after arrest, remains under investigation

Photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in police vehicle hung up at the Louvre

CTV News royal commentator Richard Berthelsen has served four governors general and lieutenant governors, and has helped organize royal visits since 1978.

The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the ongoing release of emails and photos from the Jeffrey Epstein files have reignited public concern over the standing of the former prince.

Despite his disgrace, Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne—a fact that is increasingly viewed as a significant problem for the Crown, the U.K., and the Commonwealth realms, including Canada. His judgment, conduct in public duties and private behaviour all make his continued presence in public life in any form untenable.

While Andrew’s succession is mathematically unlikely, his presence in the official line remains a point of contention for the public and media commentators.

Under the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701), the right to reign is governed by the rule of law. The basis for succeeding to the throne was largely determined in the 17th century.

Crucially, in a constitutional monarchy, only Parliament possesses the authority to alter the line of succession. In our parliamentary democracy, the people decide, and the Crown must acquiesce to the will of the public expressed through Parliament and ministers.

There is consensus that the U.K. government, alongside leaders in Australia and New Zealand, would not tolerate Andrew in line to be, even theoretically, a future monarch.

Canada is expected to join in this view. In this country, Andrew has already been stripped of honorary military appointments and patronages, and his name is being removed from various public landmarks.

While King Charles III has moved to strip Andrew of his princely titles, honours, and principal residence, he lacks the unilateral power to remove him from the succession. That task falls to the parliaments of the 15 Commonwealth realms.

Rules last updated in 2011

The rules of succession were last updated starting in 2011 to establish absolute primogeniture, ensuring that birth order—not gender—determines the heir.

These changes also abolished the prohibition on marrying Roman Catholics and reduced the number of heirs to the top six whose marriage had to be approved (in almost 300 years no one has become monarch who was born more than five heirs apart from the throne.)

These changes were encouraged by Queen Elizabeth II in advance of the birth of Prince George of Wales.

In Canada, these changes were codified via the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 (which was assented to in 2015).

However, the process was slow and in Canada at least, there were legal challenges. It was not until 2020 that the Supreme Court of Canada finally dismissed challenges to the Act’s validity, confirming that the federal Parliament holds the authority to determine succession rules.

Opening the succession laws today carries political risks. Any legislative move to remove Andrew could inadvertently trigger debates regarding:

• Prince Harry: Questions may arise regarding the status of the Duke of Sussex and his children, who reside in the U.S. and are not working royals.
• Republican movements: Caribbean nations currently undertaking a transition to republics could take the opportunity to sever ties with the monarchy entirely.
• Canadian constitutionalism: While the last changes were viewed as routine, some legal experts argue that changes to the monarchy require unanimous consent from the provinces—a “Pandora’s box” that Canadian politicians are historically reluctant to open.

The British and Commonwealth governments will likely proceed with caution, awaiting due process in the courts to conclude before amending centuries-old constitutional principles for a single individual.

Given that Andrew’s conduct has alienated a vast segment of the public, the political will for his removal appears to be a matter of “when” rather than “if.”

For Canada, the decision will be a balancing act between upholding public decorum and avoiding a protracted constitutional debate when there are other significant political, economic, and other priorities before Parliament and the government of the day.