UK Government Considers Removing Andrew from Royal Succession

That's the obvious thing to do.

Keeping that degenerate in line for the throne would be another nail in the coffin of the British Monarchy.

If that's the worst thing that happens to this creep , he should consider himself lucky.

Stop giving this plonker news headlines

The sooner he is gone not for getting his ex wife the better

Both a waste of space

5 minutes ago, shackleton said:

Stop giving this plonker news headlines

The sooner he is gone not for getting his ex wife the better

Both a waste of space

His ex wife, 'fergie', is already in the UAE and no doubt Andrew will be joining her there soon?

I think they should wait until he's convicted of a crime before deciding on the punishment.

In any case it seems a monumental waste of time, as he is 9th in line and will never ascend to the throne.

4 hours ago, ASEAN NOW News said:

Introducing such legislation would require an act of Parliament, needing approval from MPs and peers, and royal assent from the King. It would also need backing from the 14 Commonwealth countries where King Charles III is head of state, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

1 hour ago, shackleton said:

Stop giving this plonker news headlines

The sooner he is gone not for getting his ex wife the better

Both a waste of space

+1

Ditto the Count and Countess of Montecito.

"It would also need backing from the 14 Commonwealth countries where King Charles III is head of state, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand".

And therein lies a potential problem. These other 14 countries might question what value there is in remaining subservient to the British crown or whether membership of the Commonwealth itself brings any benefits.

I doubt that Buckingham Palace or Downing Street would welcome any more problems or scrutiny especially at the moment.

The UK monarchy will never recover from this.

That an anachronism such as the royal family “rules “ over a democracy is so wrong.

Maybe Andrew deserves a vote of thanks (notwithstanding his dodgy sex romps) for getting the ball rolling in the abolishment of this gravy train.

29 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

The UK monarchy will never recover from this.

That an anachronism such as the royal family “rules “ over a democracy is so wrong.

Maybe Andrew deserves a vote of thanks (notwithstanding his dodgy sex romps) for getting the ball rolling in the abolishment of this gravy train.

True. I have a feeling that William will be delighted if he can avoid being king.

1 hour ago, Red Forever said:

The UK monarchy will never recover from this.

That an anachronism such as the royal family “rules “ over a democracy is so wrong.

Maybe Andrew deserves a vote of thanks (notwithstanding his dodgy sex romps) for getting the ball rolling in the abolishment of this gravy train.

Disagree. William and Kate are loved, and Charles is increasing in his standing. The monarchy will survive this.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Disagree. William and Kate are loved, and Charles is increasing in his standing. The monarchy will survive this.

Totally agree!

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Disagree. William and Kate are loved, and Charles is increasing in his standing. The monarchy will survive this.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I just have a feeling that William and Kate would be happy to have a normal family life.

Maybe Tony Blair could be president?

52 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Tony Blair could be president?

Worst PM ever, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I just have a feeling that William and Kate would be happy to have a normal family life.

Maybe Tony Blair could be president?

Tony Bla

2 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Worst PM ever, in my opinion.

Even seeing the name 'Tony Blair' is so annoying. Not sure if I think he is the worst PM ever, but he has surely gotten away with war crimes. Just like Bush. Very sad and upsetting that he is still being held in high regard in some international circles.

As for the Royal Family, yeah, I think they will surely survive all this.

As for Andrew, well, he will remain disgraced, but I kind of doubt that he will do any jail time.

11 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

Worst PM ever, in my opinion.

Worse than Truss, Johnson and Cameron? 🤔

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Worse than Truss, Johnson and Cameron? 🤔

How many illegal wars did they start?

Yes remove him and Harry.

If either succeeded to the throne the monarchy would be finished so what's the point of them being there?

Get rid of Markles titles as well. Don't need a cheap valley girl vocal fried grifter anywhere near our royalty.

17 hours ago, Red Forever said:

That an anachronism such as the royal family “rules “ over a democracy is so wrong.

As any Brit should know, the sovereign does not 'rule' ie have actual power to do anything of moment.

He or she 'reigns' ie symbolizes the State in his or her person but has no power of action on anything that matters without the government's explicit advice.

It's on the basis of the difference between 'Head of State' and 'Head of Government' that most modern democracies work. The former is (theoretically) what you would like to see if you looked in the mirror ie reflecting the nation at its best. The latter is the one whose party you voted for or against in the last election.

As we see when we look at Trump's Usofa, confounding the 2 functions leads to no end of trouble.

19 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

As any Brit should know, the sovereign does not 'rule' ie have actual power to do anything of moment.

He or she 'reigns' ie symbolizes the State in his or her person but has no power of action on anything that matters without the government's explicit advice.

It's on the basis of the difference between 'Head of State' and 'Head of Government' that most modern democracies work. The former is (theoretically) what you would like to see if you looked in the mirror ie reflecting the nation at its best. The latter is the one whose party you voted for or against in the last election.

As we see when we look at Trump's Usofa, confounding the 2 functions leads to no end of trouble.

Fair points. In the UK, the HoS is mainly a ceremonial role.

Nevertheless, imo in a democracy the role should be filled by an election.

He will shortly announce his intention to write a "tell all" book with the intention of securing megabucks for the publishing rights, or megabucks from multiple parties not to write it. Even odds as to whether he voluntarily or involuntarily lives long enough to actually face a court case, write the book, or see his next birthday.

On 2/21/2026 at 7:40 AM, ASEAN NOW News said:

remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the royal line of succession.

Pre-Magna Carta he would literally lose his head.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Nevertheless, imo in a democracy the role should be filled by an election.

In a Constitutional Monarchy which UK is, Head of Government is democratically elected.

The Head of State is ceremonial, cultural and traditionally aligned with the State's history. All authority of the HoS is defined by the Parliament in turn based on public voters for political parties and their ministers who will occupy the Parliament. See Magna Carta.

Senile Don says he should be pardoned.

30 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Senile Don says he should be pardoned.

Is this for real?

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

In a Constitutional Monarchy which UK is, Head of Government is democratically elected.

The Head of State is ceremonial, cultural and traditionally aligned with the State's history. All authority of the HoS is defined by the Parliament in turn based on public voters for political parties and their ministers who will occupy the Parliament. See Magna Carta.

Why should a HoS's role be any different if s/he were directly elected?

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Is this for real?

No.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

No.

Let's hope not.

If it were, it would be grounds for an immediate beginning of impeachment proceedings.

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Pre-Magna Carta he would literally lose his head.

The Magna Carta was 1215!

It did not stop King Charles 1 getting beheaded in 1649!

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

In a Constitutional Monarchy which UK is, Head of Government is democratically elected.

The Head of State is ceremonial, cultural and traditionally aligned with the State's history. All authority of the HoS is defined by the Parliament in turn based on public voters for political parties and their ministers who will occupy the Parliament. See Magna Carta.

“Magna Carta”!

Did she die in vain?