Eden: King Charles is reluctant to remove Prince Andrew from the line of succession

Does anyone find it interesting that King Charles and the rest of the “working royals” (aka the left-behinds) have spent the last week doing a flurry of “business as usual” events following Prince Andrew’s arrest on Feb. 19? For Charles and Camilla especially, they seemed extra eager to be out and about, although I guess that’s true of Prince William and Kate as well (they both did three events in the seven days after Andrew’s arrest, two together and one solo each). Do they all think that people will just forget what’s happening, off to the side? Do they think regular people will never wonder what they knew about Andrew and when? Well, the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden has “heard” some whispers about what King Charles plans to do about Andrew long-term. Will the people accept “dither” as a course of action?

What I now find worrying are the rumours that reach me from Buckingham Palace about King Charles’s response to the crisis. After his brother’s arrest last week on suspicion of misconduct in public office, the King issued a statement expressing his ‘deepest concern’ about the news and making clear that the ‘appropriate authorities’ had his ‘full and wholehearted support and co-operation’.

However, Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne and, unbelievably, is still a Counsellor of State. This means he is, in theory at least, one of seven members of the Royal Family legally entitled to deputise for the Monarch if he is unwell or indisposed. When I ask royal sources why this has not been addressed, the answers I receive are disturbing. One tells me that it is because the King is deeply reluctant to ‘meddle’ with the line of succession.

‘He thinks it would be opening up a can of worms,’ a friend says. ‘For example, if Andrew is removed, would his daughters have to be, too? He thinks they are blameless and do not deserve to be punished.’

Another source tells me the King does not want to do anything which could be seen as prejudicial to his brother.

‘If he strips him of his place in the line of succession, this could be interpreted as a sign that he thinks Andrew is guilty,’ the source claims.

Both of these excuses are concerning. The King needs to take control of the crisis surrounding his brother. He could do this by stripping him of his role as a Counsellor of State and of his place in the line of succession. It would require an Act of Parliament of course, but I find it shocking that the King has not already started the process.

He demonstrated how simple it is to make changes to the list of Counsellors of State back in 2022 when he asked Parliament to add his sister, Princess Anne, and youngest brother, Prince Edward. This was done immediately with a minimum of fuss. It was reported at the time that he decided not to remove Andrew or Prince Harry because he didn’t want to escalate family tensions.

Although removing Andrew from the line of succession would take more effort, it could also be done easily with, I suspect, no objections from any of the King’s other realms, which would also have to give their approval. Indeed, the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand already eagerly expressed their enthusiasm for such a move this week. Doing so would not ‘open a can of worms’, it would indicate that the King appreciates how serious the situation is for the future of the monarchy. When Andrew is removed from the line of succession, his daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, should be removed, also. They are only included in it because of their father, and it would be absurd for them to remain.

None of this would give the impression that the King considers his brother to be guilty of a crime. But it would make clear that Andrew’s behaviour, in consorting with a convicted sex offender and lying about it to the nation, is morally repugnant. The King needs to remember that he is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and it’s his duty to provide moral leadership.

[From The Daily Mail]

You know what? A broken clock is right twice a day and Eden is correct – this IS a moment for Charles to do more, or at the very least, give the appearance of cutting Andrew out of everything. It’s clear that some MPs intend to pursue the line of succession issue, and Charles should probably give his open approval of that move immediately. I also think it’s ridiculous that Andrew is still a Counsellor of State, and that’s exactly the kind of thing that they should have taken care of years ago. And at some point, Andrew should really have his royal protection pulled, right? It’s absurd that he still has Met Police chauffeuring him around and picking him up from the police station. So… is the larger point that Charles will forever dither about Andrew?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

34 Responses to “Eden: King Charles is reluctant to remove Prince Andrew from the line of succession”

  1. Mel says:

    Charles is walking the fine line of looking like he’s doing something, while he tries to keep Andrew in check because I don’t think ANY of them want that fool to start talking.

  2. Brassy Rebel says:

    Bottom line: Charles is really afraid of where this is going and what Andrew has on him. “Dithering” is a generous reading of the situation.

    • Sussex Forever says:

      If “dithering” is a code word for not encouraging Andrew to talk about the rest of the family’s sexual and financial issues, then Charles is clever to dither. Moreover, once the royal blood line is no longer magic and can be removed, the monarch and the heir are also theoretically disposable.

      • Dutch says:

        Not only that but if Charles has to get Commonwealth blessing to have Andrew removed from the line, doesn’t it open up the door for those countries to simply wash their hands of the BRF altogether?

  3. Hypocrisy says:

    This is only going to get worse for the leftovers especially for Chuck dithering is the last thing he should be doing. I have wondered if charles will end up having AMW Princess Diana-ed just to try to control and halt certain lines of questioning and actions like parliament going after the LOS.

  4. Tessa says:

    It is aggravating when these writers like Eden put Harry in same category as Andrew. Scooter is the one to “escalate family tensions” with his constant irritation about Harry.

  5. Yes he will forever dither!! What the pedo is accused of is sharing documents and information which I believe amounts to treason? Chuckles wants to keep a traitor in the line of succession why? My opinion is and has always been that the pedo knows where Chuckles and Pegs skeletons are buried and he will talk!! Why else would you keep a family member accused of what amounts to treason in the line of succession. The dithering will continue.

  6. Mslove says:

    If dithering hastens the downfall of the monarchy, then dither away, Chuck.

  7. Pretty says:

    I agree with Charles, what dies removing Andrew from the line of succession does. I rather they cooperate with the police and give all the records of Andrew activities.

    • Jais says:

      I kind of agree. They can take him out of the LOS sure but it’s more important that he’s held to account within the law.

      • sunniside up says:

        It is highly unlikely that Andrew would ever inherit, if it wasn’t for the newspapers it wouldn’t even be discussed. William, Harry and 5 healthy children are in the way.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      CKIII CANNOT remove Andrew from the line of succession.

      Only the Parliaments of the UK and Commonwealth realms CAN remove Andrew from the line of succession .

  8. Eurydice says:

    Charles is a ditherer, but he’s also passive-aggressive and sneaky. He gives his approval simply by not disapproving. He could stop Parliament from considering the removal of Andrew from the line, but he doesn’t. He could have prevented the police from arresting Andrew, but instead it’s hands-off “cooperation” and “I don’t want to know when you’re going to do it.” I don’t know if this is the best strategy, but it’s a strategy.

  9. Lauren says:

    By the time Charles gets around to removing Andrew from the LOS it will be to little to late

  10. PunkyMomma says:

    Chuckles still believes this is going to blow over. Stunning, actually.

  11. Thinking says:

    It could probably set a precedent that affects everyone else in a domino effect, including Harry. If you start with one, then you could in theory go at everyone else for other reasons. I have my doubts he is actually concerned with or even likes Andrew himself. I could see him being concerned for Harry’s role in the line of succession though, especially if he cares about Egenie and Beatrice as well ( which would not have occurred to me until reading this article).

  12. Amy Bee says:

    All this concern about the line of succession but not for the victims. The entire thing should be abolished.

    • jais says:

      Exactly. I don’t give a f-ck about their little LOS. It’s a sketchy system anyways. There’s surely evidence out there. Let the law do it’s thing. He can’t counsel any state if he’s in jail.

  13. KC says:

    This reeks of Trump saying I could shoot someone and nothing would happen. Andrew is a rapist and a potentially a low grade traitor. What DOES it take to remove him? Does he have to grope a 14 yo in public, expose himself.
    Charles needs a spine and land on Andrew and then straighten out his lazy ass liege man.

  14. CJW says:

    “the King’s other realms, which would also have to give their approval.”

    This is what cracks me up about the talk of Peg removing Harry and his children from the line of succession. NONE, of the other countries of the realm would agree to have Harry removed.

    Hell most would prefer if he was the direct heir.

    • sunniside up says:

      I think that Australia would be happy to see Harry out of it.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Let Australia have Billy Idle and let Canada have Harry on loan from Montecito.
        Canada has the most difficult path forward to a Republic on account of all the indigenous treaties. Might buy them some time to renegotiate their Constitution as a republic.

        Would New Zealand be more like Australia or Canada?

  15. Shanta says:

    Unpopular opinion here….I think that chuck is right. It is what it is….he’s in the line of succession… Deal with it. Removing him doesn’t negate what he’s done. It just makes the firm look proactive.

  16. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    No sympathy, but is Andrew threatening to sing every dirty bit that only a family member can know and just add whatever made up shit he wants if Chuckles doesn’t try to save him? Of course he is, and he will. It’s not dithering, it’s straight up terror of what Andrew can do if he has nothing to lose.

  17. Mads says:

    Andrew is a pos, yet even I can see the danger to the institution if the government is allowed to create a Statute and set precedent to remove an individual from the LoS. Removing his Prince title is damaging in itself because it lays bare that it’s only a tickbox gift solely due to the George V Letters Patent and not an absolute birthright; if it can be removed by the stroke of a pen then it holds no real exalted significance.

    Charles can see the inherent danger, William cannot. It will be interesting to see if William’s advisors – not his KP sycophants but the grey men – will point out the truth of the matter when he’s king and, obviously, whether William chooses to listen.

  18. Paisley25 says:

    The counselors of state thing is not that important! They make it sound like life or death, but how many times was it used during Queen Elizabeth’s reign? At the end, when she was really ill? Maybe two or three times???

    The reason why Charles hasn’t removed Andrew (or Harry) is because it’s currently tied to the first four adults in the line of succession plus the monarch’s spouse. They added Edward and Anne, but if they had to actually use anyone, it would be William or Camilla. In a few years, George will be on the list. And then Charlotte and Louis.

    And for the line that of succession, either you have the magic blood or you don’t. If they want to go through parliament and remove him, do it. But how far down the line are they willing to go? Top 30! Top Top 100? I’m sure there are people way way down the line who could also be problematic.

    • Monlette says:

      The issue with him being in the LOS is that there is a small chance he will become regent if Charles and Scooter pass away before George reaches adulthood, and Harry doesn’t take the job.

  19. Smices says:

    I don’t get the argument for removing Eugenie and Bea. Their position comes from being grandchildren of the queen and from whatever the statute is that determines LOS. It’s not just tied to being Andrew’s children. That bit reads like water-carrying for Will.

  20. QuiteContrary says:

    Charles is such a damp bag of mush. No backbone at all.

  21. B says:

    In the Sussex press release about the Jordan trip it states BP was informed. Knowing how the left behinds love to pretend work whenever the Sussex are out about it does make me wonder if they always planned to do something during their 2 days and then the Andrew situation imploded and they added more days of fake work.

  22. tamsin says:

    I understand there are a couple of hundred people in the British line of succession. Apparently the German prince who was once married to Caroline of Monaco is in line, and he actually got Queen Elizabeth’s permission to marry her. Being of the wrong religion was at one time a reason for removal from the line of succession. However, like the US, it seems being immoral, amoral, a convicted criminal, a sex offender, or mental incompetence or dementia won’t do it.

    • BrackenSweetwater says:

      The wrong religion thing still applies, if you spend even one second as a Roman Catholic you get booted permanently, and in order to take the throne you still have to be a member in good standing of the Church of England (whatever THAT means).

      But the real issues come at around #70 or so in line, because it’s King Harald V of Norway. Talk about a constitutional crisis.

  23. Franca says:

    I don’t think It’s up to Charles but to the parliament. Even if C declared that the ex Duke now must be called mr AMW, he Is still formally the Duke of York. The parliament Is the only istitution that can strip titles, but It can happen if and when PA, he still Is prince, will be convicted of any wrongdoing.
    Accusing KC of not doing enought Is Just unfair given that this Is a very known rule

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment