London, United Kingdom – While citizen pressure increases for measures to be adopted, experts consulted by France 24 agree on the high probability that he will be removed if he is convicted, although this process requires the support of the other fourteen countries where Charles III is king, and this could open historical wounds that they believed had been healed.

First modification: 02/27/2026 - 03:00

Despite being investigated by the Police for alleged misconduct in public office and being the first member of the Royal Family to be arrested in 380 years, who was known as the Duke of York, until October 2025, remains eighth in the line of succession, as well as his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie.

Andrew is also currently a councilor of state, allowing him to not only advise the king, but sign key documents and stand in for the monarch in the event of absence, travel abroad or illness.

Although the possibility of Andrew ascending to the throne is remote, because he is preceded by the natural heir, Prince William, and his three children; George, Charlotte and Louis, as well as Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and their descendants, the country and MPs demand an update of the law to eliminate any eventuality.

Both the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and the monarch, and all parties have expressed their willingness to begin that path that could not begin until the judicial investigation against Andrew is concluded, for allegedly having leaked confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein, when he served as special trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

“The matter of removing Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession is purely a matter for Parliament and, of course, we would never stand in the way of that or oppose the will of Parliament,” The Times states, citing a Buckingham Palace source.

However, this change could open the future door to nations that have considered becoming a republic, such as Jamaica and, in the past, Australia.

And, in the process, it would open wounds that were thought to be closed so that other Commonwealth countries would demand economic reparations for slavery in exchange for guaranteeing their support.

"Given that Andrew is eighth in the line of succession, he will never be king, so it will be a purely symbolic act. But if he is convicted, there is a clear principled argument for removing him from the line. Added to this is that he would be convicted of misconduct in public office, so it is difficult to understand why he should remain eligible for the most important public office of all: that of monarch! Doctor Craig Prescott, Constitution expert at Royal Holloway, explains to France 24.

How would Andrew's removal work?

There is not enough political will in the United Kingdom to pass the law that would make the most significant change to the line of succession since the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936.

The British government would have to reach agreements with all Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

These last two have already raised their hands to express their support for this constitutional change to be effective.

"This is a constitutional convention that requires the agreement of all 15 countries before proceeding with any changes. Each of those countries would then have to make the necessary changes to their legislation for the change to take effect. Some would automatically recognize any changes made in the United Kingdom, as in their legislation they simply accept who the monarch is under British law. However, others will have to approve the legislation themselves," Prescott says.

However, there are voices that oppose it because this would be a more symbolic than real change.

"Debating the succession would provoke new pressure from Commonwealth republicans to demand the abolition of the monarchy in their country. One or more Caribbean nations could demand reparations for slavery and colonialism as a condition of accepting the change," royal historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo explained in his account on X.

Andrew: “rude and arrogant”

In an extraordinary debate, both in form and language, the British Parliament approved the publication of all the documents that led to Andrew's appointment as the special trade envoy.

A role without salary, but with all the privileges of being the representative of the crown and the British government, the fifth largest economy in the world.

In this motion of the Liberal Democrats that seeks to “know the truth” and “clean that stain with the disinfectant of transparency”, unthinkable phrases were heard about a member of the Royal Family, because this, it seems, is a vetoed topic in Westminster.

The debate, partly a consequence of the public mood that demands more and more answers from its rulers, was a kind of catharsis for the deputies who had been harboring feelings for years against whoever was considered the favorite son of Isabel II.

"My colleagues and many public officials have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr. Mountbatten, and they all betray the same pattern: a man in constant pursuit of self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment; a rude, arrogant man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he claimed to serve, and his own private interest," said Trade Minister Chris Bryant.

"Even more alarming is that we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former trade secretary, lobbying for Andrew's appointment. A friend of Epstein was lobbying for another friend of Epstein to take a position, a position that could enrich Epstein," highlighted the head of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey.

Davey highlighted the importance of “culture change” to protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, as well as ensure justice for Epstein's victims.

He is not being investigated for a trafficking network

Authorities are investigating his alleged crimes as a government trade representative 25 years ago, but not for allegations of alleged sexual abuse and participation in the trafficking network of women and girls led by Epstein.

According to 'The Telegraph', ten regional police officers are carrying out parallel investigations, different from those in Thames Valley, whose uniformed officers captured him on February 19, the day of his 66th birthday.

“Many of the investigations relate to allegations that the pedophile (Epstein) regularly transported exploited girls around the United Kingdom, and to accusations that some of them were presented to Mr. Mountbatten,” the newspaper notes.

“The really toxic thing is the accusations of sexual abuse and getting rid of that is not going to be impossible,” highlights Graham Smith, the leader of Republic, an anti-monarchy group, who sent documents to Thames Valley Police demanding the investigation of Andrew.

In addition to Virginia Giuffre, with whom Andrew reached a million-dollar agreement to avoid a civil trial in New York, who accused him of sexual abuse when he was a minor, another foreign woman claims to have been trafficked to the United Kingdom, in 2010, to a royal residence to have a sexual encounter with the former prince, at the instruction of Epstein.

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been one of the most proactive politicians in demanding that police forces act quickly and investigate whether, in addition, Andrew would have used Royal Air Force planes and military bases to meet with Epstein.

The 'Telegraph' also revealed that, in 2010, two police officers from Andrew's guard, paid with taxes, had received instructions from Epstein's security team to guard a party that the pedophile held in honor of the then duke at his mansion in New York.

"We need transparency and they must answer questions about what they knew and when they knew it. A historian wrote a long time ago that she was tired of trying to investigate the monarchy, so she was going to investigate a more open and transparent organization, like the CIA," Smith ironically said.

Therefore, although it is unlikely in real terms that Andrew will become king, the public demands action.

According to the most recent 'Yougov poll, after Andrew's capture, 82% of respondents support removing Andrew from the line of succession to eradicate that remote possibility.

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.