One of the secondary effects of Prince Andrew’s arrest is going to be the slowly-dawning realization that when King Charles “stripped” Andrew of his titles last year, it was all just a half-assed, make-believe work-around with no real force of law. At a technical level, Charles didn’t even strip Andrew’s titles, because Andrew had to agree to have his titles “removed” for it to have any kind of effect. It was not a legal name change, and as royal historians made clear, Andrew is still very much Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. Not only that, but Andrew has remained in the line of succession this whole time. Well, obviously, post-arrest, Parliament and Downing Street are asking more questions and trying to figure out what they need to do to get this repulsive creature out of the line of succession at least.

The government is considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession. Defence Minister Luke Pollard told the BBC the move – which would prevent Andrew from ever becoming King – was the “right thing to do,” regardless of the outcome of the police investigation.

Currently Andrew, the King’s brother, remains eighth in line to the throne despite being stripped of his titles, including “prince”, last October amid pressure over his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

On Thursday evening, Andrew was released under investigation 11 hours after his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions programme, Pollard confirmed the government had “absolutely” been working with Buckingham Palace on the plans to stop the former prince from “potentially being a heartbeat away from the throne”. He said this was “something that I hope will enjoy cross party support, but its right that that is something that only happens when the police investigation concludes”.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray told the BBC that “any questions in that sphere would be quite complicated”, adding that the live police investigation needs to “play out”.

Thames Valley Police, the force which arrested him, is expected to continue searching Royal Lodge until Monday, the BBC understands. Several other forces across the UK are also considering whether to launch investigations, noted Danny Shaw, a former adviser to ex-home secretary Yvette Cooper.

“It has the danger of spiralling out of control,” Shaw told Radio 4’s Today programme. Because of this, these investigations could take “considerable time”, he added.

The government’s proposal to remove Andrew from the line of succession comes after some MPs, including the Liberal Democrats and SNP, signalled their support for such legislation. Some Labour parliamentarians who have been critical of the monarchy told the BBC they were less convinced the move was required – in part because it is so unlikely the former Duke of York would ever get near to the throne. In October, Downing Street said it had no plans to introduce a law to change the line of succession.

[From BBC]

While Andrew absolutely needs to be removed from the line of succession, it’s overwrought BS to argue that he’s “potentially being a heartbeat away from the throne.” Andrew is eighth in line, after Prince William and his children and Prince Harry and his children. That’s not a heartbeat away from the throne, I’m just saying. Andrew should be removed from the line of succession because it makes the entire family look horrible, and because actions have consequences. This is an easy argument to make: you can’t be credibly accused of sex trafficking, abusing girls and women, espionage and sharing classified information with a convicted p3do AND STILL REMAIN in the line of succession. That’s absurd. All of this hand-wringing about what to do and how to do it is pretty telling too. These are the same people who are convinced that Charles (or William) could “unroyal” Prince Harry with the swipe of a pen.

One more Andrew story rattling around the tabloids this weekend. Apparently, when King Charles tried to force Andrew out of Royal Lodge last year, Andrew reportedly ranted and threw a tantrum. A source claimed that Andrew “refused to leave or take any responsibility. When he was told to get out he was so arrogant and deluded he repeatedly shouted, ‘But I’m the Queen’s second son, you can’t do this to me.’ It is extraordinary he chose to use the Queen’s name in his defence. No one is quite sure if the reality of his dire situation has hit home even yet.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.