Eugenie’s Pregnancy Ignites ‘Furious Debate Behind the Scenes’ About if Andrew’s ‘Entire Family’ Should Be Cut Out from the Line of Succession
There’s a new royal baby on the way, but there’s a chance the little one could be removed from the line of succession.
Princess Eugenie and her husband, Jack Brooksbank, are expecting their third child together, due sometime in summer 2026. The couple shared the exciting news on Instagram on May 4, 2026, and a statement from Buckingham Palace confirmed that King Charles “is delighted with the news.”
Despite this, royal insiders told RadarOnline in a report published May 8 that private discussions are reportedly underway regarding whether the succession status of Eugenie’s father, former Prince Andrew, could have implications for her children.
As of this writing, Eugenie and Jack’s third child will automatically be 15th in line for the throne (Eugenie is ninth). Although Andrew remains eighth in the line of succession, he was stripped of his royal duties and titles following the fallout from his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
One source alleged that the conversations surrounding possible succession changes have become “increasingly sensitive” because of the potential impact they could have Eugenie and her sister, Princess Beatrice (who’s 12th in line for the throne).
“There is enormous nervousness about opening the succession issue because once you start asking whether Andrew should remain included, the question immediately becomes whether his entire branch of the family should also be affected,” the source told the outlet.
They added, “But there is a furious debate ongoing behind the scenes about how the optics of letting Andrew remain in the line of succession make the royal family’s brand look.”
Another insider claimed that Buckingham Palace has reportedly taken part in informal talks about how any potential succession reform laws could be structured.
“The challenge is that there is almost no modern precedent for removing someone from the line of succession in these circumstances,” they explained. “Lawyers are aware that touching Andrew alone could create one set of complications, while extending changes to his children and grandchildren would create another.”
Much of the debate traces back to King Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936, when he gave up the throne shortly before marrying Wallis Simpson. Parliament introduced legislation outlining that any children Edward might later have—along with their descendants—would be excluded from the line of succession.
The provision was ultimately never tested, as the couple had no children. Still, royal observers have noted that any move to formally alter Andrew’s place in the succession could force officials to revisit legal principles for the first time in nearly 90 years.
Even so, one palace insider indicated that, despite lingering unease about Andrew’s position in the line of succession, there’s not much appetite for any major constitutional changes.
“There is concern about Andrew remaining so high in the succession, but there is also awareness that punishing Eugenie and Beatrice for their father’s mistakes could be viewed as deeply unfair,” the source said. “That is why this has become such a delicate debate internally.”
