Prince Andrew arrested in Epstein-linked UK probe, Starmer considers Act to remove him from succession line, Constitutional fix risks becoming substitute for accountability

Images

independent.co.uk

Getty/PA

(PA Archive) PA Archive

independent.co.uk

standard.co.uk

British police have arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—still eighth in line to the throne—on suspicion of misconduct in public office in an investigation tied to newly released “Epstein files”, triggering an unusually explicit debate about whether Parliament should legislate him out of the line of succession.

The Independent reports that Andrew was arrested on Thursday—his 66th birthday—and held for 11 hours for questioning, before being released under investigation. Police searches at his former home, Royal Lodge in Windsor, are continuing. The paper says Thames Valley Police are examining allegations that Andrew shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy.

The London Standard adds that former prime minister Gordon Brown has written to six police forces urging inquiries into whether Andrew used taxpayer-funded jets and RAF bases during his time as trade envoy to meet Epstein. It also reports that police have searched properties linked to Lord Peter Mandelson, and that calls are growing for a judge-led inquiry into Andrew’s dealings.

The political system’s instinctive move is already visible: treat the scandal as a constitutional plumbing issue. Prime minister Keir Starmer is reportedly reviewing an Act of Parliament to remove Andrew from the line of succession, with a Palace spokesperson telling The Independent the matter is “for Parliament”. Defence minister Luke Pollard went further on BBC Radio 4, saying “British values” point toward ensuring Andrew can never become king.

This is institutional crisis management in its purest form: separate the symbol from the process, then re-engineer the process to protect the symbol. The monarchy’s legitimacy depends on an aura of continuity and moral insulation. Criminal investigations do the opposite: they convert reputation into evidence and procedure. So the state’s incentive is to move the fight away from courts—where facts accumulate—and into Parliament, where outcomes can be negotiated, delayed, or framed as “reform”.

Yet legislating away embarrassment is not costless. Altering succession is not simply a domestic matter; as the London Standard notes, it would require agreement among other realms that share the UK monarch, including Canada, Australia and Jamaica. London is trying to change the rules of a multi-party coordination game while under reputational fire—inviting other capitals to extract concessions or reopen broader constitutional questions.

There is also a subtler accountability arbitrage at work. If the public story becomes “we fixed the succession,” the underlying question—whether a senior public representative misused office, state assets, or access—risks being downgraded to a side plot. A clean constitutional edit can function like reputational money laundering.

A YouGov poll cited by The Independent found 82% of Britons want Andrew removed from the line of succession. That number will tempt politicians to present legislation as democratic hygiene. But the harder test of the rule of law is whether the state can investigate a politically radioactive figure without turning the investigation itself into a constitutional bargaining chip.

For now, the police action is real, the searches are ongoing, and the Palace is signalling non-interference—while government figures loudly discuss changing the constitution. Britain is about to discover whether it can run a criminal process and a legitimacy-protection operation at the same time without one swallowing the other.