Prince Andrew has been pushed to the margins of royal life, stripped of his military titles and patronages, yet he still sits in one of the most sensitive positions in the Windsor story. He remains eighth in line to the throne, a detail that rankles sections of the British public and quietly haunts the monarchy’s image.
TLDR
Prince Andrew no longer undertakes royal duties and has surrendered his military titles, but he remains eighth in line to the throne because changing the succession would require complex legislation across multiple Commonwealth realms.
Public Mood Turns Ice Cold
For a generation of royal watchers, Andrew’s trajectory feels almost surreal. He was once the dashing Falklands War helicopter pilot, the Queen’s fun-loving second son, a fixture on royal balconies and society pages. His romantic life and swagger filled the 1980s, and his wedding to Sarah Ferguson played like a fairy tale on television screens across the world.
That glossy image has shattered. His long-association with Jeffrey Epstein, the disastrous Newsnight interview, and the civil sexual assault case brought by Virginia Giuffre have turned him into one of the most controversial figures in modern royal history. Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing, and the settlement of the US civil case came without any admission of liability, as reported by the BBC. According to BBC News coverage, the agreement included a substantial donation to Ms Giuffre’s charity supporting victims of abuse.
The damage to his reputation, however, is unmistakable. Polling over the last few years has repeatedly placed Andrew at or near the bottom of the royal popularity league tables, with clear majorities viewing him negatively. He has become a litmus test for how far the institution is willing to go to protect its own image, and how far the public believes consequences should extend.
When Buckingham Palace announced in early 2022 that his military affiliations and royal patronages were being returned to the late Queen, it was widely seen as the formal end of his public career. Reuters reported that the move followed a judge’s decision to allow Ms Giuffre’s civil case to proceed, and that the palace made clear Andrew would continue to defend the case as a private citizen.
Yet even as uniforms, titles, and charity roles have slipped away, one status has remained untouched. In the official line of succession, the Duke of York still follows the children of Prince Harry. For critics, that quiet detail feels at odds with the sweeping reputational penalties he has already paid.
Inside the Royal Succession Rules
The reason has less to do with sentimentality and more to do with statute. Royal titles and patronages can be removed or surrendered through palace decisions, but the line of succession is set in law. It is not a family spreadsheet that the monarch can simply edit.
The rules that govern who inherits the crown are rooted in centuries of legislation, revised most recently by the “Succession to the Crown Act 2013”. That law ended the system of male preference and removed the automatic disqualification for marrying a Roman Catholic. It was a modernizing step, but it was also a reminder of how hard it is to touch the fundamentals of monarchy.
Importantly, any attempt to change the succession today would not be a purely British affair. The monarch is head of state not just in the United Kingdom but in 14 other Commonwealth realms, including Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and Papua New Guinea. Constitutional scholars such as Professor Robert Hazell at University College London have pointed out that altering the succession list would require those countries to participate, because they share the same sovereign.
That was the case for the 2013 reforms. Governments across the realms had to agree on the principles before Westminster could pass its act, and then each country needed to make its own legal adjustments. It was a coordinated diplomatic and legal exercise that took years, and it was about gender equality in the abstract, not one controversial royal.
In other words, removing a single individual from the line is not as simple as crossing out a name. It would mean re-opening a delicate constitutional settlement that binds together multiple nations, each with its own politics and public moods around the monarchy itself.
Can Parliament Force Him Out
In theory, Parliament could pass a law that reorders the line of succession or skips over a specific person. There is precedent for dramatic legislative intervention in royal inheritance. The abdication of Edward VIII in the 1930s, after his determination to marry Wallis Simpson, required an act of Parliament and assent from the then Dominions. It changed not just a king, but the future path of the family.
Yet the political appetite for such a move in Andrew’s case appears limited. He is not a reigning monarch choosing love over the crown. He is a sidelined prince in his sixties, with no realistic prospect of ever wearing it. As long as King Charles, Prince William, and William’s three children are alive and well, Andrew’s position is symbolic rather than imminent.
That symbolism still matters to many Britons, particularly those who see the line of succession as a moral register of sorts, a visible hierarchy of who the institution deems worthy. For campaigners and some commentators, leaving Andrew on that list feels like an unspoken endorsement of a man whose behavior and judgment have raised profound questions.
For governments, though, the calculation is different. Redrafting succession law would consume parliamentary time and open up debates about the very future of the monarchy at a moment when ministers often prefer to keep constitutional questions tightly controlled. It would also require delicate coordination with other realms where republican sentiment is already growing.
So far, no British government has signaled any intention to pursue such legislation. Statements from Downing Street have tended to emphasize that Andrew has stepped back from public duties and that legal matters are for the courts, not politicians. The message between the lines is simple. Parliament has far more immediate battles to fight.
The Palace Balances Image and Bloodline
Inside palace walls, the response has followed a different logic. The institution has focused on what it can control without triggering constitutional chain reactions. That has meant a careful separation of Andrew’s private status as a son, brother, and father from his public status as a working royal.
The late Queen’s decision to accept the return of his military roles, and now King Charles’s clear preference for a slimmed-down monarchy, have placed Andrew in a kind of royal limbo. He retains his dukedom and his place in the family, but he is absent from balcony moments, state occasions, and front-line charity work that once defined his public persona.
For an older generation who remembers the young prince flying dangerous missions in the South Atlantic, the contrast is striking. The Falklands veteran who once embodied duty and daring now lives largely out of sight, his legacy clouded by friendships and choices that collided with a new era of accountability.
For the palace, that quiet exile is both shield and statement. It keeps the most radioactive figure off the public stage, while signaling that there are limits to how far birth alone can insulate a royal from consequences. Yet by leaving his place in the succession untouched, the institution also underscores how jealously it guards the legal architecture that sustains the crown.
The result is an uneasy compromise. Andrew is no longer the bold young prince of tabloid memory, nor is he a private citizen in any normal sense. He is a reminder that in a hereditary system, the past can never be fully rewritten, only managed. The question that lingers over the royal family is how long that quiet management will satisfy a public that has already rendered its own verdict.
Join the Discussion
Do you think Prince Andrew’s quiet exile from public duties is enough, or should the monarchy eventually revisit his place in the line of succession?
