Debate has resurfaced over whether and how Prince Andrew could be removed from the line of succession to the British throne, prompting renewed examination of the constitutional framework that governs royal inheritance.

Under current law, the order of succession is determined primarily by the Act of Settlement of 1701 and subsequent legislation, most recently the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Any change to the line of succession would require an Act of Parliament, as it is enshrined in statute rather than subject to unilateral royal discretion.

The monarch does not have the authority to alter the succession independently.

Constitutional scholars note that Parliament retains sovereign power to amend or repeal succession laws.

A bill could be introduced to remove a specific individual or to modify broader eligibility criteria.

However, such legislation would be politically sensitive and constitutionally significant, requiring careful drafting and broad parliamentary support.

Because the British monarch is also head of state of several Commonwealth realms, any substantive change to succession rules would typically require consultation and coordinated legislative action among those countries.

This principle was followed during the reforms enacted in 2013, when the realms agreed to end male-preference primogeniture and allow heirs to marry Roman Catholics without losing their place in the line of succession.

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, stepped back from public royal duties in 2019 and was later stripped of military affiliations and royal patronages.

However, these decisions did not affect his constitutional position in the line of succession, which remains governed strictly by statute.

Legal experts emphasise that removing an individual from the succession would be unprecedented in modern times but remains legally possible through parliamentary action.

Whether such a move would be pursued depends on political will and broader constitutional considerations rather than executive or royal decree.