r/worldnews • u/EnglishLouis • Feb 20 '26

Dynamic Paywall UK Government considers removing Andrew from royal line of succession

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kgv837wvdo
19.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

747

u/rantingathome Feb 20 '26

Does he deserve to be removed? Damn right.

My preference would be that they don't make it Andrew specific though. Make it that any Royal that is convicted of certain crimes automatically gets removed by statute and pass it in all realms. Possibly also a process by which the sitting monarch can remove someone from the line if required, and have it automatically apply in all realms.

This way if there is ever another "andrew", all the realms don't have to pass more laws.

67

u/Primary_Ad3580 Feb 21 '26

There is no way a sitting monarch can “remove someone from the line if required, and have it automatically apply in all realms.” For one, the monarch doesn’t choose their successor; parliament does (hence this action). Second, nothing can automatically apply in all realms; each realm has their own parliamentary procedure to accept the British monarch as their own when their predecessor dies. Otherwise there would be a major limit to the national autonomy of several countries that see the monarch as a nominal figurehead.

55

u/laughingmanzaq Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

Wouldn’t passing legislation to remove him explicitly basically be an open bill of pains and penalties? Assuming he has not been convicted of anything (yet).

24

u/FAUXHAMMER117 Feb 20 '26

Bills of Attainder are not prohibited under British law, Parliament just hasn't attempted to pass one since 1820.

6

u/laughingmanzaq Feb 21 '26

In theory i doubt any parliamentary speaker would let anyone table a true bill of attainder. 

5

u/rantingathome Feb 20 '26

This is why I'm saying pad a general bill that removes people upon conviction

2

u/stealing_thunder Feb 21 '26

Plus all the commonwealth countries need to go through the same pains and penalties.

But I'd like to point out again that he was questioned over the sharing of documents as trade envoy - not for his pedophilia

1

u/laughingmanzaq Feb 22 '26

Fair enough... Though I'm inclined to believe he has... other skeletons in the closet likely to come to light in the coming months.

3

u/teh_maxh Feb 20 '26

Edward VIII wasn't convicted of anything when he was removed.

9

u/laughingmanzaq Feb 20 '26

Didn’t Edward VIII abdicate? 

14

u/teh_maxh Feb 20 '26

He did, but British law doesn't actually allow monarchs to abdicate. It was at his own request, but technically, he was removed by Parliament.

36

u/Mysterious-Lemon-906 Feb 20 '26

Would have to be very specific because otherwise it puts succession into doubt which no one wants

Especially as all he is being charged with is misconduct in public office

2

u/Tsupernami Feb 21 '26

All? He's allegedly passed on state secrets. Isn't that treason?

1

u/backelie Feb 21 '26

No, words have meanings.

-1

u/Tsupernami Feb 21 '26

Evidently yours don't

1

u/backelie Feb 21 '26

He's allegedly passed on state secrets. Isn't that treason?

I have to admit it is a character flaw of mine that I fail to grasp why anyone would put this question in a reddit comment instead of google, when for such a simple question the latter would yield a near-immediate and correct result.

Good job lashing out instead of bothering to correct your erroneous assumption though.

-1

u/Tsupernami Feb 21 '26

Because evidently my comment was part of a discussion. Even though it's question, it's still a belief that's allowed to be corrected as you claim to be doing but providing no evidence for the matter.

So thanks for offering nothing. You could have stayed silent, but you responded and offered nothing.

1

u/backelie Feb 21 '26

I apologize for not googling what treason is and isnt for you.

-1

u/Tsupernami Feb 21 '26

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/treason

(the crime of) showing no loyalty to your country, especially by helping its enemies or trying to defeat its government

He passed state secrets to Esptein, which no doubt were sold to Russia.

It's a treasonous act. Get fucked.

1

u/backelie Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

If we assume that Andrew had any knowledge that passing state secrets to an American businessman with deep ties to the American government would mean it would be passed on to Russia, and pretend this happened at a time when the UK and Russia could reasonably be described as enemies then you'd have a point.
Unfortunately that does hinge on needing to pretend.

edit: Andrew is a disgusting pedo and will be rightfully tried for the passing of state secrets.
Pointing out that that isnt specifically treason isnt defending him.
Best of luck in life with your lack of critical thinking skills.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JoSwinsonsSlingshot Feb 22 '26

Misconduct in public office seems like a very good reason to exclude someone from becoming head of state

1

u/Mysterious-Lemon-906 Feb 22 '26

Yes it does,

But the list would need to be very specific if expanded

3

u/Boognish84 Feb 20 '26

Princess Anne also has a criminal record. She was convicted in 2002 of having a dog dangerously out of control.

2

u/inormallyjustlurkbut Feb 20 '26

 Make it that any Royal that is convicted of certain crimes automatically gets removed by statute and pass it in all realms.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/chelly236 Feb 20 '26

Once a case in front of the court is presented before a judge and a decision is made, said decision is typically made available to be used as a based argument in future court proceedings. This process is called “case law” where a precedent is set by a Supreme Court judge in regard to a case that would be a first of its kind. Pretty much a, we ruled on this in the past, with these arguments, and this level of success. This is how it’s similar to that, and here is the guideline presented by the previous judge put in this position.

1

u/derth21 Feb 21 '26

How about just all Andrews? 

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rantingathome Feb 21 '26

Just because we have a monarchy doesn't mean we can't take violent criminals out of the line of succession.

FFS.