Royal News and Views

Royal News and Views
[ Royal News and Views ]

Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Karen on February 23, 2026, 8:29 am

https://news.sky.com/video/australia-would-back-any-uk-plan-to-remove-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-from-line-of-succession-13511129

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Martha on February 23, 2026, 8:41 am, in reply to "Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

I can't imagine any opposition to this. Charles has done everything in his power to strip Andrew of royal titles, styles and privileges. The rest is up to Parliament and the Commonwealth nations.

This might be a good opportunity to define just who can be in the line of succession and/or a councilor of state. Certain actions might cause someone to disqualify themselves so that their removal process is quick and predetermined.

===

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Susan T on February 23, 2026, 10:28 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Who could be Counsellors of State could have been limited to working royals when the Counsellors of State Act 2022 was passed to add Anne and Edward to the existing list, but Charles objected and gave his word that he wouldn't choose non-working royals to represent him.

The media speculated he didn't want to give Harry and his wife something else to complain about.

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Hollie24 on February 23, 2026, 10:59 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

I suspect that, when William comes to the Throne, we are going to see a lot of changes, one of which is limiting Counsellors of State to working Royals only. I also think he'll move to have Harry's titles stripped and Harry and harry's descendents removed from the succession. I'm very certain William has a list of reforms he wants done to the monarchy.

Removing Andrew from the succession makes sense, and I doubt any realm of which Charles is King would object to it.

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Martha on February 23, 2026, 11:08 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Just for discussion's sake, why not a Councillor who is not a working royal? Hearing from Lady Louise or the Duke of Kent wouldn't compromise the monarchy. Some of the Charles' advisors aren't working royals, either, so having someone with an interest in the monarchy, but not with an angle to play, might be beneficial.

More important than being a working royal would be living in a Commonwealth nation. To me, anyway.

===

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Susan T on February 23, 2026, 12:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Counsellors of state are always the monarch's spouse and the first four people in the line of succession who meet the following specifications: they must be British subjects of full age (21 years, or 18 years for the heir apparent or presumptive) who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and not disqualified from becoming monarch.

Those people are William, Harry, Andrew, and Beatrice.

"Domicile" doesn't mean where a person currently lives, so whether Harry means the qualifications is a legal issue that nobody really wants to explore.

It is enough to know that neither the King, Parliament and the majority of the people in the UK do not want neither Harry nor Andrew filling in for the monarch.

Charles did not want to explicitly remove anybody by name, fearing that Harry would act up (possibly sue?), so he suggested limiting the position to working royals, but that would have meant Catherine and Sophie would be eligible. I think Parliament didn't want to include any more people who weren't in the line of succession.

The quick fix was to add Anne and Edward for their lifetimes specifically to the list, with Charles giving assurance that he would only select working royals.

As to why limit to only working royals, the duties which require Counsellors of State to be appointed are those that are duties of the Head of State. It could be construed as disrespectful for a non-working royal to show up.

If a person isn't "good enough", is surplus to requirements, or just doesn't want to work for the full-time for the monarchy, then they don't get to act as Head of State at an event.

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Martha on February 23, 2026, 2:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Well, that makes sense. I was think either the Duke of Kent or Princess Alexandra would be good on the roster. Not that they'd want to fill in for the monarch, but they would be more unobjectionable than others who are currently on the list.

===

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by karenl on February 23, 2026, 7:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

I'm waiting for the media to start howling about Beatrice being on the Counsellor of State roster. The media, especially the DM seem to have the opinion that Beatrice and Eugenie are guilty of their parent's sins. They've been brutal on Beatrice without any proof of guilt on her part.

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Martha on February 23, 2026, 8:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

They have to kick someone, and the more people they can blame the better.

===

New Zealand Joins Australia In Succession Line Removal Plan

Posted by karenl on February 24, 2026, 1:52 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

https://www.dw.com/en/australia-new-zealand-back-axing-andrew-from-line-of-succession/a-76097976

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Hollie24 on February 24, 2026, 2:28 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

THe Duke of Kent was a Counsellor of State from the 1950s on. There was a dearth of senior adult Royals who could serve as Counsellors in the 1950s and 1960s and so the Duke and his sister Alexandra both became Counsellors of State when they turned 21. I think they, along with their uncle the Duke of Gloucester, Princess Margaret, Prince Pilip, and the Queen MOther were the only Counsellors of State until Anne and CHarles came of age. Maybe Princess Mary, the Queen's aunt, served as well? I can't recall.

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Susan T on February 24, 2026, 10:00 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Wikipedia has a list of people who were eligible. It includes the time period during which they were eligible.

Link: Counsellor of State

Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession

Posted by Hollie24 on February 24, 2026, 10:38 am, in reply to "Re: Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Thanks. I'd forgotten about the Earl of Harewood and the Connaughts.

A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by Karen on February 23, 2026, 12:14 pm, in reply to "Australia would back any UK plan to remove A M-W from line of succession"

Not surprised whatsoever.

Former senior civil servants said they were shocked to see the claims, and that there was a culture of deference towards the former prince within Whitehall that allowed them to proceed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/23/former-prince-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-charged-massages-taxpayers-uk-trade-envoy

Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by Martha on February 23, 2026, 2:42 pm, in reply to "A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports"

Okay - nobody ask how much worse this can get. This is turning into a hold-my-beer situation.

===

Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by karenl on February 24, 2026, 2:22 am, in reply to "Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports"

Yep, I expect more "dirt" will be uncovered over all of this. As I said, the media has been raking over the Royal Family, which is fair, but they've been ignoring the actions of the government during Andrew's tenure as trade envoy. Now it's starting to emerge....with more to follow, I'm sure.
I got my drinks ready.

Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by Susan T on February 24, 2026, 10:02 am, in reply to "Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports"

Yes, the media is ignoring the fact that Andrew was accompanied on these trips by at least one government official.

Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by Hollie24 on February 24, 2026, 10:40 am, in reply to "Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports"

Which means that the dirt was known even then. Andrew may prove to be small potatoes and the tip of the iceberg with this giant mess.

Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports

Posted by Martha on February 24, 2026, 12:33 pm, in reply to "Re: A M-W charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports"

Maybe the government officials let Andrew get away with his misdeeds so he wouldn't blow their cover. As we can see, with one going down they're all being exposed.

Charles has literally done everything he can to marginalize and punish Andrew, the rest is up to Parliament. The press needs to back off.

===

« Back to index

148

[ Royal News and Views ]