Constitutional Analysis | February 2026

Beyond the Title: The Legal Reality of the Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

The recent arrest of the man formerly known as Prince Andrew has sent shockwaves through the Commonwealth. However, as the media focuses on the scandal, Professor Anne Twomey of Constitutional Clarion takes us into the courtroom to examine the cold, hard legal mechanics of crown immunity, the line of succession, and the rarely invoked charge of misconduct in public office.

Stripped of his "Royal Highness" status and military affiliations, the individual now legally referred to as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor faces a legal landscape that is far less protective than many might assume.

1. The Myth of Total Immunity

A common misconception is that members of the Royal Family are "above the law." Professor Twomey clarifies that Sovereign Immunity applies strictly to the Monarch ("The King can do no wrong"). While limited immunities occasionally extend to the heir (the Duke of Cornwall) in specific civil or property matters, these protections do not blanket the extended family.

For Mountbatten-Windsor, there is no immunity from criminal prosecution. As a private citizen in the eyes of the criminal law, he is subject to the same police powers and judicial processes as any other resident of the United Kingdom or Australia.

"The law distinguishes between the person and the office. When the 'Royal Highness' is removed, the shield of the Crown vanishes, leaving the individual to stand alone before the Bar of Justice."

2. Removing a Royal from Succession

Can a person under arrest remain in the line of succession? The video explores the complex legislative path to removing a member from the British and Australian succession lines. This isn't a simple royal decree; it requires:

• Parliamentary Acts: In the UK, an Act of Parliament is required to alter the line of succession.
• Commonwealth Consent: Because of the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act, changes to the succession must be mirrored or consented to by Commonwealth realms like Australia to maintain a consistent monarchy.

3. Misconduct in Public Office

Perhaps the most fascinating legal angle discussed is the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office. Unlike statutory crimes, this ancient charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in the UK. The prosecution must prove:

1. The defendant was a public officer.
2. They willfully neglected their duty or committed misconduct.
3. The misconduct was to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust.

The debate now centers on whether holding a Royal Dukedom or representing the Crown on trade missions constitutes being a "Public Officer." If the courts find in the affirmative, the legal peril for the former Prince increases exponentially.

Should the rules of succession be automatic for those facing criminal charges?

Disclaimer: This post summarizes legal commentary provided by Constitutional Clarion and does not constitute legal advice. Please refer to the original video for full context and legal citations.