Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor continues to remain eighth in the order of succession to the British throne despite having been stripped of several royal privileges, including the formal use of the title “prince,” in October 2025 following renewed scrutiny surrounding his past association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy has intensified political and legal debate across the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations about whether he should retain any constitutional position within the monarchy.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has now indicated that his government would support efforts to remove Andrew from the royal line of succession. In a formal letter addressed to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Albanese confirmed that Australia would agree to any proposal seeking to alter the succession order to exclude Andrew. He stated that, given the seriousness of recent developments, Australian authorities believed the matter warranted thorough legal examination and that allegations connected to the case were being viewed with significant concern by the Australian public.
In his correspondence, Albanese emphasised the importance of allowing the legal process to proceed independently and fairly, adding that a full and proper investigation must be conducted. He noted that the allegations were grave and required careful scrutiny, echoing broader calls for accountability as investigations continue in the United Kingdom.
Although Andrew has already lost certain royal titles and official roles, the UK government is reportedly considering whether new legislation should be introduced to formally remove him from the succession. The discussion gained urgency after his arrest on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Authorities allege that the case relates to claims that confidential information may have been shared with Jeffrey Epstein during official overseas visits more than a decade ago, when Andrew served as a UK trade envoy. Andrew has repeatedly denied all allegations and maintains that he has committed no wrongdoing.
Albanese later reiterated his stance publicly, describing the situation as an “extraordinary fall from grace” during an interview with Sky News Australia. He remarked that the developments were highly unusual given Andrew’s longstanding public role as a member of the royal family, adding that the legal proceedings would likely examine not only newly surfaced material but also earlier allegations connected to the wider Epstein controversy. While declining to comment on specific legal matters, Albanese stressed that the seriousness of the accusations justified continued investigation.
According to police statements, Thames Valley Police arrested Andrew on 19 February at his residence located on the Sandringham estate. The arrest formed part of an ongoing inquiry into alleged misconduct connected to his past diplomatic responsibilities. Investigators also conducted searches at properties linked to him in Norfolk and Windsor as they gathered evidence. After approximately 11 hours of questioning, Andrew was released but remains under active investigation. No formal charges have been filed, and prosecutors are still assessing whether available evidence meets the legal threshold required to proceed with a prosecution.
The question of whether Andrew can be removed from the line of succession involves complex constitutional procedures. Any such change would require primary legislation to be passed by the UK Parliament, meaning approval from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving royal assent from King Charles III. Because the British monarch also serves as head of state for multiple Commonwealth realms, changes to succession rules traditionally require consultation and agreement from those nations as well.
Under conventions rooted in the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and reaffirmed during the 2013 reforms to royal succession laws, countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand would typically need to provide consent before alterations affecting the line of succession could take effect. As a result, any move to remove Andrew would not only be a domestic legislative matter for the United Kingdom but also a coordinated constitutional process involving several Commonwealth governments.
