Andrew Windsor is still clinging to eighth place in the line of succession, while the King’s attempt to clean up the royal order runs straight into constitutional thickets and Commonwealth politics.
As RadarOnline.com has revealed, the 66-year-old former Duke of York, stripped of his titles by King Charles, 77, last year, remains on the succession list because changing it would require agreement across 15 realms, from Britain to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
That leaves Prince Harry, 41, and his children ahead of Andrew, as ministers weigh whether to move against Andrew after a police investigation tied to his links with Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019.
A palace source told Radar in an exclusive interview: “Andrew is still there because the law leaves him there, not because anyone thinks it is a good look. Pulling him out would mean coordinating a legislative fix across the Commonwealth, and that is not a simple palace decision.”
The source added: “There is plenty of anger about him staying in the line, but the constitutional machinery is glacial. Unless governments on both sides of the Atlantic want to spend months untangling the same issue, he remains in place by default.”
A constitutional scholar said: “This is not a case of Parliament making one clean change and moving on. Each realm that shares the monarch has its own legal responsibilities, and every one of them would need to sign up to the same basic amendment.”
The expert added: “That creates an awkward diplomatic exercise, because the practical risk of Andrew ever becoming king is vanishingly small, yet the legal steps to remove him are extensive. It is the kind of problem that looks simple in a newspaper headline and becomes far messier the moment lawyers get involved.”
Andrew’s position has become even more awkward since public anger intensified after his release under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
A recent YouGov poll found 82 percent of Britons wanted him removed from the succession, while only 6 percent thought he should stay.
Andrew Bowie a senior Conservative MP, said: “It would be the decent thing for him to step aside, and if Parliament eventually had to act, I think there would be a strong case for that. But he has not been charged, and the police should be left to do their work.”
Ed Davey, the UK’s left-leaning Liberal Democrat party leader, said: “This is something Parliament may need to look at when the time is right. Right now, the priority has to be allowing the police to investigate properly, without interference or pressure.”
Under current rules, the succession runs through Prince William, 44, and his children, then Prince Harry, 41, and his children Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, before reaching Andrew.
If Andrew were ever removed, those behind him would not move up – the gap would simply close.
A parliamentary source said: “There is a strong political instinct to act, but the legal structure is unforgiving. Some governments will not want to devote scarce parliamentary time to a change that has so little chance of becoming relevant in real life.”
The source added: “For all the noise, Andrew’s place is symbolic more than practical. It would take an extraordinary chain of events for him ever to be anywhere near the crown, which is why the argument is so much about optics and so little about succession in the literal sense.”
Our constitutional expert source summed up the current situation by saying: “As matters stand, the line of succession still puts Harry ahead of Andrew, so if William’s son George were to ascend the throne while still a minor, Harry would be first in line to serve as regent.
“If he could not do it, the next call would be to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and if he were unavailable, Princess Beatrice would follow. This is how Andrew could end up leapfrogging Harry in the line of succession.”