It would take a once-in-a-lifetime Parliamentary, Commonwealth and Royal Family consensus to axe Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession – but King Charles must instigate it without delay. Every day Andrew’s sordid saga deepens; every day his shameless past seeps out like an infected wound – every day the Royal Family is being dragged into his tawdry mire.
I say mire, it’s more like quicksand for King Charles and, most importantly going forward, Prince William, Princess Catherine and their children Princes George and Louis and Princess Charlotte. Also, the deeper they find themselves sucked into Andrew’s shameful connections with dead sex trafficking paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the more they will find it’s a story with no end.
I love the unique nature of our constitutional monarchy, its link to our history – mainly good but sometimes bad. That’s why it is the envy of the world and why Americans interested in their own nation’s history are equally enthralled.
US Democrats would swap President Donald Trump with our King as ‘head of state’ in the flutter of a hummingbird’s wing if they could.
But obviously we have our own republicans who hope the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s long, momentous reign and the start of King Charles’s will eventually tip the scales of public opinion in their favour.
Last year the British Social Attitudes survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) showed just 54% of Brits now believe it’s ‘very’ or ‘quite important’ for Britain to have a monarchy.
This is the lowest proportion to be recorded by the survey since it first asked the question in 1983. Back then, as many as 86% said that it was important for Britain to have a monarchy.
It comes as a poll suggested that three quarters of Britons believe Andrew should have to give evidence to the US Congress about his links to Epstein.
So you can see – any long-term link to scandal, and vile scandal at that, could cause irrevocable damage to the way the monarchy is viewed by younger generations.
If you go on the Royal Family website and look up ‘line of succession’ it lists 1 – Prince of Wales; 2 – Prince George; 3 – Princess Charlotte; 4 – Prince Louis; 5 – Duke of Sussex; 6 – Prince Archie; 7 – Princess Lilibet and at 8 (drumroll please) – Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
In an era of optics, how does this look around the world?
Passing a law to cut out Andrew – in case you’re wondering, Princess Beatrice at number 9 would take his place – would be complex, as it would require consent from the 15 Commonwealth realms who recognise King Charles as monarch, including Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and Canada.
In recent history, King Edward VIII lost his place in the line of succession when he abdicated the throne in 1936, while Prince Michael of Kent was removed from the line of succession when he married a Catholic in 1978, although he was reinstated with the Succession to the Crown Act in 2013.
The last time the government made changes to the succession laws it took two years of protracted negotiations to remove the rule that male children would take precedence over female children.
This is not simple – it would take time, effort and money. Also as a law going through Parliament it can be amended by a mischievous MP. I mean, they could amend the bill to remove Prince Harry from the line of succession too.
If that doesn’t convince you – nothing will!
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.express.co.uk ’
