The Royals with Roya and Kate - Will Andrew be removed from royal line of succession?

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

A fortnight on from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, the crisis has shifted into constitutional territory — with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer saying the Government is “looking at options” on the line of succession. Roya Nikkhah and Kate Mansey explain why succession is a matter for both Parliament and the Palace, what “removal” would actually involve, and what it could mean for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie — as well as the precedent it could set for a future monarchy under William.Image: Getty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, the podcast where we give you insight into what happens behind palace walls and why it matters. I'm Royne Nika. And I'm Kate Mansy. Andrew Mountbatten-Winzer has been stripped of his prince title, shut out from royal life and now faces an ongoing police investigation. But one crucial fact hasn't changed. He's still in the line of succession. And that's not something the palace can just fix with a statement or by removing. a title. The line of succession is set by law, which means it's a matter for Parliament. Well, the Palace has signalled that it won't stand in the way of government ministers should they decide to act. But Westminster sources warned that any change could take years to come to

fruition. So how realistic is it to remove Andrew from the line of succession? What does that process actually look like and what implications could it have for his daughters? And if Parliament does decide to step in, what precedent does that? set, not just for this crisis, but the way the monarchy handles scandal and accountability going forwards. All that today and more on the Royals. Well, it's a simple but really important point. Andrew remains eighth in line to the British throne, but why has this become such a live question? So UK lawmakers have been calling for Andrew to be removed from the line of succession after his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Now it's important that we say

And he's been released under investigation. He hasn't been charged with anything and he's denied any wrongdoing. But Keir Stama made an intervention, didn't he? Kier Stammer told reporters last week, I can tell you the government is looking at options in relation to succession. We are considering what measures could be taken. But that would have to be after a police investigation. Well, that doesn't show any time of concluding anytime soon.

There's a lot of interventions. And it just begs the question, why wasn't this looked at? last year when his titles were removed and all his honours were removed and it was all wrapped up. It wasn't all wrapped up and now it's come to the fall and it's even worse. I think it's trickier for the palace and it's tricky for government given that there's a live police investigation going on. Public opinion is so behind this, isn't it? So we've seen a UGov poll which we've published. It was conducted on 20th of February and it showed that 82% of British adults think Andrews should be removed from the line of successions. But what does this mean, Royal? Why do you think this is

crucially important now? Well, I think it has so much to do with the public's perception. That UGarf poll is a sign of public perception. But also, I think it goes to the heart of how the monarchy is handling this, how Parliament is going to handle this down the line. Because, of course, there was a big movement last year in October where the king stripped Andrew of all his titles, all his honours, all his styles. But this issue of him remaining in the line succession was not dealt with last June.

We'll come on to that a little bit because there's a little bit of, There are a few reasons, and not everyone in the royal family agreed, and it's quite a sensitive subject. But it's become a very live issue now because, of course, Andrew being released under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, the notion that he remains in line to the throne. Yes, people might say what he's only eighth, but, you know, I think it's really the very fact that if he had his titles and his prince title, his duty removed, why did he remain in the line of succession? This has created a real headache for government. And what's really interesting is the movement and the mechanism of it. Because for a very long time after those titles were removed in October, the palace repeatedly said every time the likes of you or I or other reporters went and said,

he's still a councillor of state. He can undertake affairs of state if called upon, if the king's not around. The palace would say, well, he's never going to be called on because they're so much about him. But he's still in line. And the phrase that kept coming back was, well, it's a matter for parliament. It's not something that we'd get involved in. It's not something the king would want parliamentary time. taken up with. And very recently, that moved to, we wouldn't stand in government's way,

in Parliament's way, if they wanted to act. And within days of that change of move music from the palace, we had all these ministers coming out, including the Prime Minister saying, we're looking at it. Well, that was a curious line, wasn't it? Because the palace has not stood in the way of Parliament since the 17th century. So the idea that they would do so now is kind of ridiculous, but that it almost took that intervention for Parliament to feel important. boldened in that way to then and take it forward, almost needed the king's blessing. That's what those briefings kind of seem to me. It's a fine line. When I was speaking to people at the palace, they were saying, we wouldn't

stand in the way. Well, of course you wouldn't. But the fact that they made that, they put that out. They were briefing that out into the public. And then, of course, we see the cogs turn. And we hear Parliament, as we've discussed, start talking about Andrew within the House of Parliament and the line of succession. It's interesting. People might think, what is the point of doing it because it's so unlikely to happen. Who have you got? You've got the king, of course, then you've got the heir to the throne, William, his three children. Then you have Prince Harry and his two children before you get to Andrew. So there would have to be quite a lot of untimely tragedies before it will be even a

point at which you would have to consider Andrew as the king. That said, it becomes a point of principle, doesn't it? Is that why you think ministers are doing, pushing for this? I think so. I think, again, even though Andrew has not been charged, he denies all wrongdoing, the very fact that the palace and his brother the king felt that he has made so many lapses of judgment, as the statement said, to remove his titles and remove every royal bobble, every bit of royal trappings he has, this is a huge part of it. But of course, the government have said, and we did a story about it that we can, that this could take years. Undoubtedly. And the reason it could take years is because nobody wants to do anything that might preempt any sort of sway, any sort of decision with regards

to police investigation. And so I think, you know, there is frustration in some areas of the royal family, particularly Prince William, that this wasn't looked at last year. Or even before that, because in 2019, when he was taken off royal duties, when he stepped down from being a working member of the royal family, as has somebody else in the line of succession, there could have been a conversation then about whether he stays as a potential future king. The same thing, could be said of Harry. And I think at the time, they didn't want to have those conversations. And the king didn't want to take up parliamentary time and money having those discussions. But the can was kicked down the road, wasn't it? And now we're in quite a pickle.

The monarchy is in a state of crisis. It's not the end of days, I don't think, or the worst they've ever seen. But certainly, you know, this could have been dealt with beforehand. It's certainly something William wanted dealt with beforehand, which if you ask, officially asked the palaces about that. They're very touchy about it and they insist that William and his father in Loxham about it. They're not, because William has probably expressed how frustrated he was, that wasn't dealt with

last year. I think also what it shows back to the point of government to the palace that even when the palace say it's not a matter for the king, it's for parliament, this absolutely goes to show the moon music changed from the king and then parliament acted. Any matters for parliament with regards to a family

need to get the nod from Buckingham Palace and the king to happen. And that's the reality. in action, isn't it? It's the golden triangle, isn't it? So back channels and you wonder how much further on we are from the days of Queen Victoria when she really did have a handle and power within Parliament.

We're told that the monarchy is there wouldn't stand in the way of parliamentary matters but I think you've really hit on an interesting point there that how much power does the palace still have when it comes to kind of almost through the back channels green lighting the idea that this can go ahead.

Wouldn't have happened otherwise? Because you're seeing it So it strikes at the heart of the institution, doesn't it? This inherent kind of God-given right to the throne, the anointed monarch. You know, as we see through the coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey, it's linked up with church, it's linked up with country, it's linked up with palace and linked up with government. But it's all reliant on you're born into that line of succession. Well, now we're saying if you don't deserve it, then you can be stripped of it. And it's also a different question from Edward.

the eighth who abdicated who decided it wasn't for him because he wanted to go off and marry Wallace Simpson. In that case, it could be dressed up as a kind of a who's branching out for freedom and for love. I mean, this is a much more difficult subject, a conversation to be had, isn't it? It definitely is. I mean, in terms of the delay, one of the things that government sources were saying to us last weekend when we did the piece was it's a very, it's constitutionally complex. The legislation will take a while to draft.

no one wants to affect the police investigation and no one knows how long that's going to run for particularly with all the sort of documentary evidence that the police will try and gather over a very long period of time I think but also the Commonwealth issue because to remove someone from neither session requires agreement from the rest of the Commonwealth and the king is head of state

he is the king in 14 other realms as well as the UK now I don't think for a second any one of those realms is going to say actually we'd like to keep Andrew and we've had Australia and we've had Albanese right to Kirstama saying almost immediately to say we won't block that, we're happy for that, and New Zealand have done the same. But that will raise other questions.

It will possibly raise other discussions and questions around the monarchy, the institution in those realms. You can see how that might spark more debates in some of the realms that talk about the fact that they want to become republics but do nothing about it. I'm thinking of some of the Caribbean realms. Well, we were there in Jamaica, weren't we, when Kate and William went to visit and they were left standing when they were told we're moving on. But the subject having to discuss it in their own parliament about Andrew brings up.

Back to life. As we've said before, you know, a whole new can of worms. And I think this is, it's really interesting that the way that the realms operate because there is no kind of law that says they have to sanction it. However, in the statute of Westminster to get really technical in 1931, there is a preamble which says that they should be included. And that's been enshrined in a way. There's a kind of binding convention that they must be. insulted. So we've seen that in the past. We've seen that in 1936 with the abdication of Edward the 8th. We've seen that in 2013 when the order of succession was changed with regards to

male prime and janitor. So this was to account for Kate William's first child. And that was backdated to 2011. So any child born into the royal family after that, doesn't matter if they're boy or girl, would have the same equal right to the throne. The queen pushed that forward. And actually, And it was a great idea of hers because primogeniture, which still exists in this country, and some bits of society, doesn't in the royal family. But actually, when it came down to it, she was able to get agreement from the Commonwealth very quickly on that. It wasn't a long-drawn-out process. There was unanimity on that.

Well, technically, it shouldn't have been the Queen driving it. It should have been Parliament from that point of view. People don't realise, actually, when the law changed to account for whether George was a George or Georgina, let's say. It wasn't sort of backdated very far. It just went back to October 2011. That means that if we take Andrew out of the order of succession, let's say, and let's take his children and we'll come on to this, their children. But if you took Andrew out, it wouldn't mean that Anne would then be next in line.

It would still be Edward. So Anne, although she's the second born of the four children that Elizabeth and Philip had. And the hardest working member of the royal family year and year out, she's still way down. She still ranks under Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh and his children in the line of succession, which is, I think, really fascinating that he was never, it was never backdated. I can see the legal complications for backdating it. I agree. I think most people would think it's extraordinary.

It is how constitutional monarchy works as things stand now, but it is extraordinary. I think that the likes of the Princess Royal and the Duke of Edinburgh are below Beatrice and Eugenie's children in the line of succession. I wonder how many of our listeners could name. name those children. It's interesting. It's one of those things that I think as this succession issue develops, there'll be more and more discussion around it. Do you think it deserves a deeper look? I do. When you start talking about Andrew, you start talking about Harry, Duke of Sussex. Now, should he still be in the line of succession, it might be something that comes up if parliamentary time is going to be dedicated to this. Again, a horrible tragedy would have to take place for

William and his three successors to perish essentially and have Prince Harry as king but you know stranger things have happened if we're going to start he's there as despair isn't he the ultimate spare name of his book but also he needs to be in the nine succession does he doesn't he to be a spare

and you question whether you are the anointed in the anointed order of the royal family or whether you have to deserve to be there is there going to be a democratisation of the institution in that respect if People don't want Andrew. Working rules only in the dining succession.

It might be something that some realms put forward when they're consulted. I should imagine there'll be all sorts of interesting kind of input from across the world. Coming up, if succession change could take years, can the monarchy survive the weight? I think one of the things that came out of the piece I did with Gabriel Pogrand at the weekend, looking at the succession, looking at the issue, looking at right from last October, when the titles were stripped and those two statements were issued by the palace, one by Prince Andrew,

which was extraordinary at the time, the next one by the king, stripping him the titles. There was this mood music from the households that the king and Prince of Wales were completely agreed on the course of action. Ever since then, we've had Kensden Palace spokespeople come out and say,

the Prince of Wales supports His Majesty's leadership, but it was made very clear to me by someone very close to William, not a member of the household, someone else. He feels very frustrated. still a live issue that may even go into his reign. And it wasn't dealt with last year. And it is, it's interesting that the household get very touchy about that when you report that, because on the face of it, they want the public and us to think that everyone is in agreement on all

of it. Well, I mean, that very rarely happens on any big major issues with regards to the household. But I think it's interesting in terms of the point you made about looking back. And so many questions, I think, will be asked about how the palace handled this crisis from 2008. 11 when Andrew was forced to step back, maybe even from before to 2019 and onwards. How has it handled it? And I think, again, just hearing that perhaps William felt, why are we leaving him the line of taking everything else away? And at the time, the king, he didn't quite want to go there on it.

But then again, it wasn't his decision, was it? It's one for Parliament. So, yeah, again. But it's the royal nod. The royal nod wasn't given then. Yeah, I mean, arguably there shouldn't need to be one. But for whatever reason, it seems that they did in this instance. And I think that's really interesting about William and Charles,

because we constantly told by both officers that they're in lockstep on the issue. Having said that, we can see for ourselves that when we were in Saudi Arabia, there were two statements very similar, but issued within several hours of one another saying about Williams and Kate's concern over what's been discovered in the Epstein files. Fast forward a few hours later, you know, we were just about to go out for dinner in Saudi Arabia, an unexpected statement dropped from Buckingham Palace,

saying the king was deeply concerned. He was profoundly concerned, actually, and William a few hours earlier had been deeply concerned. And, you know, I wrote the next day saying, they need to get their act together because they need to be on the same page with this. And people need to know what's being done, what the palace knew and when.

And that plays into kind of your piece as well, your investigation with Gabriel Pogrand about how they operate and how they deal with it. To that point, that week and sounded because it was really interesting. And at the end of that week, someone said to me, because I was asking him out of that, that was a bit weird. Those two statements were a bit weird kind of on the same day, but not quite at the same time. Someone said, well, you know, William is finding things quite frustrating at the moment because there are decisions being made. He doesn't have total control of them. Yes, of course he's consulted by his father, but he doesn't have the ultimate say he's not the chief executive of the firm. No.

He's the deputy chief executive. And I think now when he's looking at these issues, you know, Andrew remaining in the line succession, the fact that the decisions have been making, which are clearly going to have major implications for his reign going forwards, whenever that happens, full front of his mind. And for a very good reason, I expect, because we've seen, haven't we, he doesn't want history to repeat itself. Now, we know, I know, I've been told by people very close to the palace and close to Charles that at the time he raised. concerned with his mother when he was Prince of Wales about the way in which they dealt with Prince Andrew. Now, this is all coming to roost on Charles's watch, if you like, during his reign. And William has seen that play out and now wants to have a say in how things are going to be because that's going to impact. And who knows when he may take the throne, but when he does,

I've been writing about this for nearly 20 years. This Andrew's story is not going to go away. And no matter what, how it plays out, it's still a kind of a live, you know, running sore for the royal family. Now, we've had a really interesting email from a listener, Tim Maynard. And this is what he's emailed in. He has said, once attention turns to the line of succession, the more you pull at the threads, the more absurd it seems. Andrew should be removed. But then shouldn't Beatrice and usually by extension? Well, this was really interesting when we were digging away last week

and Gabriel spoke to government sources about this very issue because I was really interested to know what is the situation. This is kind of unprecedented. If he's removed, how do Beatrice and usually stay in the line of succession if Andrew is removed? And what government sources said that was fascinating was no decisions been made on that yet. So obviously the legislation hasn't been drafted yet, but all options are open. And I think my reading of that is I think the royal family and government will wait to see how events unfold and what other information may come to light.

I spoke to a constitutional expert last week on it and I said, what's the mechanism? Could they, should they stay, remain? And the constitutional expert said to me, look back at the Abdication Act. If Beatrice and Eugenie were to be removed from the line of succession, the legislation would need to specify that. In the way the Abidication Act, Edward VIII said, I renounce the throne for myself and for it. any future my sons and heirs. In the end, he never didn't go on to have children. But it ruled out any possible. So that's what the legislation would need to say. But we don't know when it's going to happen and what the mood music will be around Beatrice and Eugenie. And I think that's, again,

going to be a tough call for government, but it will come with a nod from the palace. But isn't this ultimately where the hesitation lies? Because you've got Beatrice and Eugenie, you know, we've been told that they have the support of the king. You know, they've, were there at Sandringham at the family Christmas. It was interesting when they stripped Andrew of the Duke title that they, princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie remain princesses, royal princesses, but also they remain part of the House of York. Do you remember the guidance we got from past at the time was we got with Q&A and it said the position of the princesses remains wholly unaffected? Now, if he's removed from line in succession, that isn't the case. It's hard to see

know how they could maintain that stance. And I think that will all be part of the government debate because this isn't just going to be somebody in Westminster signing something off. Signing something off. It is going to take up parliamentary time, which was another part of the hesitation last year. You know, when Parliament could be discussing all sorts of other, very important things like what's going on in the Middle East at the moment, for example. Yeah, but we could see another parliamentary debate like we saw last week on it. I mean, that was fascination to hear Andrew discussed in Parliament last week by MPs with the ultimate question being should the files around his appointment as a trade envoy be published. But you could, in theory,

and very likely when this comes to pass, when legislation is drafted, it could well be debated in the House, at which point you will have Andrew being debated and possibly his daughters too. I mean, it's hard to think if they're going to get into the weeds with this, it's hard to think that they would strip Andrew out of the line of succession and leave his daughters in. and their children. What do you think about that? Well, I think it's very difficult because there hasn't been, you know,

any kind of public outcry about the princesses. But I do think this, like I say, you know, it opens a can of worms because once you start asking questions about Andrew, you start examining, you know, like the listener says, you start examining so much about the whole institution. You know, if you start pulling at one thread, the whole thing does start to unravel in a way,

but I think it could be a moment, The palace is smart and government is smart. Actually, they could see a way to get around it. To embolden the institutional, firm it up for the future, actually, and take out people who aren't working members of the royal family possibly, given if it has government approval. It's hard to see a world in which that decision when it comes and that legislation, when it's drafted, it's hard to see a world in which the king and the Prince of Wales

aren't very closely consulted on that. because again, the decision on whether and Beatrice remain in the line succession will be a matter that will at some point become an issue for William. Yeah. I mean, the stakes could not be higher for William. You know, the ramifications of this

will be felt throughout the institution for generations. So they need to get it right when they do it. Yeah. To get it right. Right first time. Right for the institution, right public perception. Absolutely. So that's all we've got time for this week.

Thanks so much for listening. And it's been great to hear your thoughts. Please keep them coming. You can email us at the Royals at the Times.k.k. And we'll always do our best to explore your questions on the podcast. And if you enjoy the episode, please do follow us, rate us, and it really does help other people try to find the show. So we'll be grateful for that.

And we'll see you next week. Goodbye.