Parliament possesses the constitutional authority to remove Prince Andrew from the royal line of succession, though such action would represent an unprecedented use of legislative power in modern British history. The mechanism exists through Parliament's supreme authority over succession laws, established through centuries of constitutional development. This power has never been exercised to remove a royal family member for conduct-related reasons.
The legal framework governing royal succession stems from the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which modernized inheritance rules but maintained Parliament's ultimate authority. This legislation replaced the previous patchwork of laws dating back to the Act of Settlement 1701 and removed male primogeniture while maintaining Protestant succession requirements. The Act grants Parliament power to alter the line of succession through standard legislative procedures, requiring approval from both Houses and Royal Assent.
Previous succession changes required extraordinary circumstances and broad constitutional justification. Edward VIII's abdication in 1936 involved voluntary renunciation of the throne to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson, creating the constitutional crisis that led to George VI's accession. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 and subsequent legislation have modified succession rights, but always through voluntary means or clear constitutional necessity rather than punitive action.
Constitutional scholars note that removing Andrew would require demonstrating compelling public interest and potentially criminal conviction or clear unfitness for office. The threshold for such action remains deliberately high to preserve constitutional stability and prevent political weaponization of succession laws. Legal experts suggest that civil settlements or allegations alone would not meet the extraordinary standard required for parliamentary intervention.
The current controversy stems from Prince Andrew's association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his subsequent civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022. Despite losing his royal patronages and military affiliations, Andrew retains his position as eighth in line to the throne. His placement follows King Charles III's children and grandchildren, making his potential accession increasingly remote as the royal family expands.
The political reality presents significant obstacles beyond legal mechanisms for any succession removal. Conservative MPs would likely resist action that appears politically motivated or sets dangerous precedent for future interference. Labour faces accusations of republican sentiment if they pursue such measures, while Liberal Democrats lack sufficient parliamentary strength to drive legislative change independently.
International constitutional monarchies provide limited guidance for such unprecedented action. The Dutch Parliament modified succession laws in 1983 to include female heirs, while Sweden changed succession in 1980 to establish absolute primogeniture. However, these changes involved expanding rather than restricting succession rights, offering little precedent for punitive removal of royal family members.
The procedural requirements for succession modification would involve introducing primary legislation through either House of Parliament. The bill would require committee scrutiny, multiple readings, and extensive debate before reaching Royal Assent. Constitutional convention suggests such legislation would also require consultation with Commonwealth realms where the British monarch serves as head of state.
Any parliamentary action would establish dangerous precedent for political interference in royal succession, potentially undermining the constitutional balance between democratic accountability and monarchical independence. The delicate equilibrium that has defined British governance for centuries depends on maintaining clear boundaries between political and royal authority. Future governments could exploit such precedent to influence succession based on partisan considerations rather than constitutional necessity.
The monarchy's enduring popularity and Andrew's distant position in succession reduce immediate pressure for legislative intervention, making parliamentary action unlikely without dramatic developments. The constitutional framework exists but remains deliberately difficult to invoke, preserving both democratic oversight and royal stability.