The Labour government is considering unprecedented legislation to remove Prince Andrew from the line of succession to the British throne, according to sources in Whitehall, as fresh allegations against the Duke of York surface and Peter Mandelson's past advocacy for the royal creates diplomatic complications.
The move, first reported by the BBC, would represent a constitutional intervention of extraordinary significance—the first time since the abdication crisis of 1936 that Parliament has actively sought to alter the royal succession through legislation. Andrew currently stands ninth in line to the throne, though he was stripped of military titles and royal patronages in 2022.
As they say in Westminster, "the constitution is what happens"—precedent matters more than law. And the precedent being contemplated here would mark a fundamental shift in how Parliament approaches questions of royal prerogative and succession rights.
The government's deliberations come against an awkward backdrop: Mandelson, newly appointed as Britain's ambassador to Washington, pushed for Andrew to serve as trade envoy in the early 2010s despite objections from Buckingham Palace. According to The Telegraph, the then-Business Secretary advocated for the Duke's role even as concerns mounted about his associations.
The timing could scarcely be worse for Britain's transatlantic diplomacy. Mandelson arrives in Washington to represent a government now contemplating the legislative removal of a royal he once championed—a contradiction that opposition MPs have seized upon with relish. Andrew eventually stepped down from the trade role in 2011 following mounting criticism.
The constitutional mechanics of removing someone from the succession are complex but not unprecedented. The His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 excluded Edward VIII and his descendants from succession rights. More recently, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 amended succession rules to end male primogeniture, demonstrating Parliament's willingness to intervene in royal matters when political consensus exists.
What makes this case extraordinary is that it would represent removal not through voluntary abdication but through Parliamentary action against an individual's will—a step that raises profound questions about the relationship between Crown and Parliament in the modern constitutional settlement.
The fresh allegations, reported across multiple outlets, have intensified pressure on Downing Street to act decisively. Labour backbenchers have privately expressed concern that inaction could make the government appear complicit in protecting royal privilege at the expense of accountability—precisely the sort of perception that damages the party's modernising credentials.
Yet the government faces a delicate balance. Any legislation would require careful drafting to avoid setting precedents that could be weaponised against the monarchy more broadly. Constitutional experts note that removal from succession would not strip Andrew of his title or royal status—merely his theoretical claim to the throne.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on what it describes as "a matter for government." The King, who has maintained a notably distant relationship with his brother since ascending the throne, is understood to have been kept informed of the government's deliberations through the usual channels.
The political calculation for Keir Starmer's government is straightforward enough: public opinion strongly supports action, and the legislation would likely pass with cross-party support. But the constitutional implications extend far beyond one disgraced royal, potentially establishing new parameters for how Parliament can intervene in matters of succession and royal status.
As with so much in British constitutional law, what matters is not what is written but what is done. Should this legislation proceed, it would establish a precedent that Parliament can remove succession rights based on conduct—a power that, once established, may prove difficult to contain.
