Plans to formally remove Andrew from the line of succession may seem decisive, but according to a former attorney general they are probably more fanciful than possible.
Following Andrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, discussions reportedly began in Downing Street to remove him from the line of succession altogether.
Although currently eighth in line after the Prince of Wales, his three children, Prince Harry and Harry’s two children’s ministers are said to be considering whether a clean break with the constitution is necessary.
Defense Secretary Luke Pollard was among the first senior Labor figures to publicly back the idea, claiming it would be the “right thing to do”, albeit only once the inquiry is complete.
Talking further GB news, Sir Michael Ellis, former Attorney General for England and Wales, rejected the proposal as constitutionally flawed and politically unwise.
Changing the line of succession is not just Westminster’s call. Any change would require agreement not only from the British Parliament, but from the 14 other Commonwealth realms where the monarch remains head of state.
In addition, the states of Australia and the provinces of Canada must also adopt similar legislation.
The last time such an international legislative relay took place was over a decade ago, when reforms modernized inheritance rules and lifted restrictions on marriage to Roman Catholics.
Sir Michael suggested that it would be disproportionate to repeat such an effort for Andrew, especially given the low likelihood of him ever reaching the throne.
He even referenced the classic dark comedy Kind Hearts and Coronets that only a wildly unlikely chain of events would make Andrew supreme.
