1 hour ago

Richard Wheeler ,political reporterand Nick Eardley ,political correspondent The government is considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession.

Defence Minister Luke Pollard told the BBC the move - which would prevent Andrew from ever becoming King - was the "right thing to do," regardless of the outcome of the police investigation.

Currently Andrew, the King's brother, remains eighth in line to the throne despite being stripped of his titles, including "prince", last October amid pressure over his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

On Thursday evening, Andrew was released under investigation 11 hours after his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

He has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions programme, Pollard confirmed the government had "absolutely" been working with Buckingham Palace on the plans to stop the former prince from "potentially being a heartbeat away from the throne".

He said this was "something that I hope will enjoy cross party support, but its right that that is something that only happens when the police investigation concludes".

On Friday unmarked police cars and vans were seen coming and going at Royal Lodge, the 30-room Windsor property where Andrew lived for many years.

At one point more than 20 vehicles could be seen parked at the property, although it is not known it all was connected to the investigation and searches.

Thames Valley Police, the force which arrested him, is expected to continue searching Royal Lodge until Monday, the BBC understands.

The government's proposal comes after some MPs, including the Liberal Democrats and SNP, signalled their support for such legislation.

Some Labour parliamentarians who have been critical of the monarchy told the BBC they were less convinced the move was required - in part because it is so unlikely the former Duke of York would ever get near to the throne.

In October, Downing Street said it had no plans to introduce a law to change the line of succession.

After the latest revelations, historian David Olusoga told BBC Newsnight there is now "a desperate desire within government and within the palace to draw a firewall… between this crisis and the wider monarchy".

Buckingham Palace has not publicly commented on the government's plans to remove Andrew from the line of succession.

The move would require an act of Parliament, which would have to be approved by MPs and peers and would come into effect when given royal assent by the King.

It would also need to be supported by the 14 Commonwealth countries where Charles III is head of state, including Canada, Australia, Jamaica and New Zealand.

The last time the line of succession was changed by an act of Parliament was in 2013, when the Succession to the Crown Act restored individuals who had previously been excluded because they had married a Catholic.

The last time someone was removed from the line of succession by an act of Parliament was in 1936, when the former Edward VIII and his descendants were removed due to his abdication.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said police should be "allowed to get on with their job, acting without fear or favour".

He added: "But clearly this is an issue that Parliament is going to have to consider when the time is right, naturally the monarchy will want to make sure he can never become King. "

The SNP would support removing Andrew from the line of succession if legislation is required, according to the party's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who represents York Central, has also backed the move.

She said: "I would support legislation to remove Andrew from the line of succession and to remove from the counsellor of state. "

Counsellors of state can stand in for a monarch who is ill or overseas although, in practice, only working royals are expected to be called upon to fulfil those duties

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source