succession: New Zealand backs Andrew’s removal from UK line

Published: 24 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

New Zealand has declared it would support efforts to remove Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor from the royal line of succession if the UK government moves ahead with legislation. The prime minister’s office in Wellington said on Tuesday that if the United Kingdom proposes stripping Mountbatten‑Windsor of his place, New Zealand would back it, reinforcing a stance Australia first articulated just days earlier. This marks a rare moment in Commonwealth politics where realms subordinate their longstanding ties to the monarchy with a clear and public position on one of its most senior figures.

The word succession is likely to dominate discussions in London and across Commonwealth capitals in the coming weeks, as political leaders weigh the future of a member of the British royal family now facing intense scrutiny. New Zealand’s support comes on the heels of a letter from Australia’s prime minister to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in which Canberra confirmed it would agree to any proposal to bar Mountbatten‑Windsor from succession.

At the centre of this unfolding constitutional controversy is Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor, once known as Prince Andrew, the brother of King Charles III and currently eighth in line to the throne. Despite his removal from royal duties and titles last year, he remains within the order of succession, a status that has drawn fierce criticism given the serious allegations surrounding his conduct. These allegations relate to his past role as a UK trade envoy and documents linked to the late US financier Jeffrey Epstein, and have revived longstanding calls for accountability from both political figures and the public alike.

Under the complex constitutional arrangements of the British monarchy, changing the line of succession is not a matter solely for Westminster. Any such change would require legislation passed by the UK parliament and the unanimous consent of all 14 other Commonwealth realms where King Charles remains head of state, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Wellington’s announcement that it would support such a law underscores the evolving nature of ties between the monarchy and its constituent realms.

In New Zealand, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s office said that discussion on the matter with their British counterparts had already taken place. “If the UK government proposes to remove Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor from the order of succession, New Zealand would support it,” a spokesperson said, adding that the government has been in regular contact with London about the potential move. The statement underscored the principle that “no one is above the law,” echoing similar sentiments expressed by Australia.

The announcement in Wellington followed swiftly after Canberra’s more formalised backing. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote directly to Prime Minister Starmer confirming that his government would agree to any plan to remove Mountbatten‑Windsor from the royal line. Albanese described the allegations against the former royal as “grave” and said Australians take them seriously, while also affirming that the law must take its full course.

Both New Zealand and Australia thus stand as the first two Commonwealth realms to publicly endorse the possibility of such a constitutional shift. Their positions are significant not just for what they reflect about public sentiment toward the disgraced royal, but also for the political pressure they exert on other realm governments to clarify their own stances on the matter before any formal legislative process begins.

Mountbatten‑Windsor’s present status in the line of succession has been increasingly controversial since he was stripped of royal titles last October amid renewed scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose network of associates included influential figures around the globe. Even before these most recent developments, there had been growing calls for accountability over his actions, especially given the severity of the allegations detailed in released documents.

His arrest by UK police on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office was unprecedented in modern British royal history. The investigation, still underway, centres on his time as a trade envoy, with allegations including the sharing of sensitive information with Epstein, though no criminal charges have been filed yet. Mountbatten‑Windsor has consistently denied wrongdoing in relation to the released documents and other accusations.

The fallout from his arrest has extended beyond legal and political spheres into matters of public opinion and constitutional debate. Australia’s Albanese publicly acknowledged that many Australians feel a disconnect between their identity and having someone with such a controversial record remain eligible, however remote his chances are of ever ascending to the throne. At the same time, he ruled out any immediate moves toward republicanism, saying that Australia has no plans for a referendum on its own heads of state despite his personal republican leanings.

In New Zealand, reactions to the government’s announcement have been mixed. While Wellington’s position might be seen as aligning with broader Commonwealth opinion, some politicians, including Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, suggested that for many citizens domestic priorities outweigh concerns about a distant constitutional figure. Seymour remarked light‑heartedly that issues such as housing and healthcare might take precedence over the succession debate for ordinary New Zealanders.

Still, legal and constitutional experts say that any change to the line of succession will be closely scrutinised for precedent and broader implications. Previously, changes to succession — such as ending male preference in heritage rights — were agreed upon by realm governments and took years of negotiation and legal amendments before implementation. Any move to exclude Mountbatten‑Windsor permanently would likely require similar care and consensus, even as public pressure mounts for decisive action.

King Charles himself has taken a measured approach to the situation. Buckingham Palace has said it would not stand in the way of a legislative change if proposed by the government, and the king has publicly reiterated that the law must take its course, indicating an avoidance of direct interference while upholding legal due process.

As the UK government signals its intention to consider specific laws to strip Mountbatten‑Windsor of his right to inherit the throne once the police inquiry concludes, the spotlight will increasingly fall on how Commonwealth realms respond to an issue that tests not only legal traditions but also the moral underpinnings of their shared constitutional monarchy. The coming weeks are expected to bring further statements from other realm governments, setting the stage for a rare moment of constitutional evolution across Commonwealth countries bound by centuries‑old ties to the British crown.

Check our latest news