Because the laws that give titles are different than the laws that include someone from the line of succession.

If I remember correctly, there are around 5,000 people in the line of succession, and most of them don't even know they're on it.

Yeah that seems pretty dumb, but these processes are hardly robust. More like Byzantine.

I'm not from the UK or living there. So grain of salt and all... But I read this not so much as a punishment, but closing a loophole so he can never ever be in a position of royal power or benefits. And it would hold even if he wins in court.

If we in the US had closed some loopholes 2021-24, we would be at least 50% less fucked.

And maybe 90% less if we'd done it after Nixon.

It's not enough. But it's not nothing.

Everything I've read about this says that the misconduct in question was sharing state secrets with Epstein.

The child raping doesn't appear to be concerning them.

Different parts of the government. Charles has all but kicked him out of the royals themselves. This would just be finishing the job.

Neither group has any real say in prosecution etc. This is just an additional ceremonial "Fuck you for making us look bad!"

God damn. Comment hit hard. No notes. I just wish the people in the US realized that even the monarchs of Britain are being "punished" more than the equivalent rulers of our similar class structures that exist in modern day with just different names. Our "Epstein class" (capitalist class) have less punishment than modern day monarchs.

The punishment of the monarchs is to become a rich capitalist with no titles. The punishment of the capitalist is nothing.

You know that the government doesn't conduct criminal investigations?

That could be a tricky legal question. The current law is that changes in the line of succession must be approved by all 15 Commonwealth realms. But this law was itself a regular statute passed by the Westminster parliament.

The principle of parliamentary supremacy demands that no parliament may bind the will of a future parliament. That is, could Westminster just override the 1931 statute when they pass this special "cut out Andrew" bill? There might not be a whole lot that says they can't.

i think that's part of the requirements

Considers, as in "works out how they might go about doing something in a legal manner which has never been done before".

I'm sure dumber things have happened.

You can have never had a title and still be in the line of succession, or have titles and not be in line, they're two separate, but related things