In the wake of ongoing scandals surrounding Britain's royal family, the position of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the disgraced former prince and brother to King Charles III, in the line of succession to the throne has come under renewed scrutiny. Currently eighth in line after the families of Princes William and Harry, Andrew's spot is largely symbolic given the improbability of him ever ascending, but calls for his removal have grown louder in recent months. According to an in-depth analysis published by The Conversation, stripping him of this hereditary right is possible, though it would require a complex, multi-jurisdictional legislative effort across the United Kingdom and its realms, including Australia.
The controversy traces back to Andrew's entanglement in a high-profile civil sex abuse lawsuit settled out of court in 2022, which led to him relinquishing his military titles and public duties. King Charles III reportedly stripped him of his remaining royal patronages in early 2024, further distancing the family from the 64-year-old duke. Public opinion polls in the UK have shown declining support for the monarchy amid these revelations, with some advocates pushing for a formal exclusion from succession as a definitive act of repudiation.
"The place of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former prince and brother of the king, in the line of succession to the British throne appears to be under threat in the United Kingdom," states the analysis in The Conversation, highlighting the symbolic weight of such a move. While Andrew's low ranking makes his removal unlikely to alter the practical future of the crown, it could signal a broader reckoning within the institution.
The legal framework governing succession is rooted in a patchwork of ancient English laws, including the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, which have long applied across the British Commonwealth. These statutes, incorporated into Australian law as early as the 18th century, were initially unalterable by dominion parliaments. That changed with the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which empowered self-governing nations like Australia to repeal or amend British laws affecting their territories, albeit with caveats to maintain uniformity in matters of the crown.
A key provision in the Statute of Westminster's preamble established a convention that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne" requires the assent of all relevant parliaments, including those of the United Kingdom and the dominions. This was put to the test in 1936 during King Edward VIII's abdication, when the UK Parliament passed legislation excluding any potential heirs from his line. Australia, then a dominion, provided its assent, allowing the British act to extend to its jurisdiction—a mechanism no longer viable today following the Australia Act 1986.
Section 1 of the Australia Act explicitly states that no UK parliamentary act can extend to Australian law without request and consent, forcing any succession changes to originate domestically. The Australian Constitution, enacted in 1901 when the crown was still viewed as "one and indivisible," lacks a direct provision for altering succession rules. However, Section 51(xxxviii) offers a workaround, enabling the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on such matters with the request or concurrence of all states involved—powers once exclusive to the UK Parliament at federation.
This cooperative mechanism was successfully employed in 2011, when the 16 realms sharing Queen Elizabeth II as head of state agreed to modernize succession laws. The changes eliminated male primogeniture, allowing the eldest child regardless of gender to inherit, and removed disqualifications for marrying Catholics. "Power to the princesses: Australia wraps up succession law changes," proclaimed headlines at the time, as the reforms took effect across the realms.
The UK led with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, but delayed implementation until other nations aligned. In Australia, the process dragged on due to varying legislative schedules and state elections, culminating in each state passing the Succession to the Crown Act 2015. Australia was the last realm to enact its version, after which the alterations activated simultaneously on December 26, 2015, in countries including Canada, New Zealand, Barbados, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Applying a similar process to exclude Andrew today would likely begin with consultations among the realms to ensure consensus, even if not legally mandated. The UK government would draft a bill serving as a template, specifying whether the exclusion extends to Andrew's daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and their descendants. The analysis notes that under historical precedents, such as the Catholic marriage disqualification, an individual's removal treated them as "dead" for succession purposes without affecting heirs—a approach that might be mirrored here.
Parliaments in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and others (excluding Barbados, which became a republic in 2021) would need to pass equivalent legislation to maintain symmetry. "Putting such a bill before a parliament runs the risk that other issues will be raised, opening broader questions concerning the role of the monarchy in different realms," warns the Conversation piece, underscoring potential political pitfalls.
Australia could theoretically act unilaterally under its constitutional powers, but experts deem this improbable. The effort would involve coordinating seven parliaments for what is, practically, a negligible change given Andrew's eighth position. Moreover, Covering Clause 2 of the Australian Constitution references "the Queen" extending to her "heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom," creating interpretive ambiguity. Some legal scholars view this as merely an updating mechanism, while others argue it binds Australia's succession to the UK's, potentially inviting constitutional challenges if diverged.
"There is considerable disagreement about whether this is just an interpretative provision about updating references, or whether it has a substantive effect," the analysis explains. To avoid this "Pandora's box," Australia would likely prioritize alignment with the UK, preserving the shared monarch model established post-World War I through Imperial Conferences.
By 1930, dominions like Australia had evolved into separate crowns, with their prime ministers advising the sovereign on local matters, such as appointing the governor-general. Yet succession rules remained synchronized, a harmony that the 2011-2015 reforms reinforced despite initial hurdles. The Conversation article, authored by constitutional law experts, emphasizes that while the 1936 abdication saw seamless extension of UK law to Australia, post-1986 realities demand independent yet coordinated action.
Beyond Australia, the process could ripple through other realms, testing the monarchy's relevance in an era of republican sentiments. In Canada and New Zealand, where polls show mixed support for the crown, introducing such a bill might spark debates on abolition. The UK's Parliament, facing its own pressures, would need to navigate internal party dynamics, especially with the Labour government under Keir Starmer expressing openness to monarchy reforms since taking power in July 2024.
As of now, no formal proposals have emerged from Buckingham Palace or Westminster, but advocacy groups like Republic have amplified calls for Andrew's removal, citing it as essential for restoring public trust. "This makes it extremely unlikely he would ever become monarch, but his removal is more a symbolic act of repudiation," according to the analysis. Whether this symbolic step materializes remains uncertain, hinging on political will across distant capitals. For the Windsors, already grappling with health concerns for King Charles and the ongoing fallout from Prince Harry's departure, the succession debate underscores the evolving nature of a 1,000-year-old institution in a modern world.
Looking ahead, any push to alter the line could set precedents for future exclusions, potentially based on conduct or other criteria, challenging the absolutism of hereditary entitlement. Legal experts anticipate that if pursued, the timeline might mirror the 2015 reforms—spanning years amid elections and priorities—ensuring uniformity while respecting each realm's sovereignty. In Appleton, where interest in Commonwealth affairs runs deep among expatriate communities, the saga continues to captivate, reminding readers of the intricate ties binding nations to an ancient throne.