Charles doesn't have the power to remove anyone from the line of succession; that would take an act of Parliament.
And the consent of all 14 commonwealth countries. Costly and time wasting. The last change took 2 years to ratify? (Adding girls to the succession process)
That's why Charles decided to formally strip Andrew of all his titles, because there were movements in Parliament to do it, and Charles didn't want them to have to waste time debating and passing a bill (while undoubtedly causing further embarrassment to the Crown). I suspect that it will only become an issue if Andrew were to somehow move well up in the line of succession, say, in the event that William and all of his children were to die in some terrible accident/terrorist attack/assassination. I suspect that in that case, Harry would abdicate. (I can't imagine that he would even want to be king, or want any of his descendants to inherit the throne, after all the bridges that he's burned.) But, I presume that the Act of Abdication for Harry would provide that Andrew be removed from the line of succession.
) They were just given equal precedence. However, this was not made retroactive, so Anne and her children are still behind Andrew (for the time being) and Edward, even though she's older, but Charlotte is ahead of Louis, because she's older.
As already stated by others, the King can't do anything about the line of succession himself. Andrew has been dropping down the line of succession since his big brother got married (though his sister had it worse, being bumped down for each new younger brother), and it would take a series of very unlikely events for him to accede to the throne now so I don't think it's worth worrying about, certainly not as a matter of urgency.
www.theguardian.com
That's why Charles decided to formally strip Andrew of all his titles, because there were movements in Parliament to do it, and
Charles didn't want them to have to waste time debating and passing a bill (while undoubtedly causing further embarrassment to the Crown). I suspect that it will only become an issue if Andrew were to somehow move well up in the line of succession, say, in the event that William and all of his children were to die in some terrible accident/terrorist attack/assassination. I suspect that in that case, Harry would abdicate. (I can't imagine that he would even want to be king, or want any of his descendants to inherit the throne, after all the bridges that he's burned.) But, I presume that the Act of Abdication for Harry would provide that Andrew be removed from the line of succession.
Finally, a nitpick. Girls weren't added to the succession process. (Elizabeth and Victoria would like a word.
As well as avoiding the ongoing coverage that would have ensued as the matter was debated in Parliament.
I'm not seeing it, in what way is it being contradictory?
Is this the official line of succession?
Yeah, they've just not changed that to Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.