Key obstacle could block No10's 'vindictive' bid to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from line of succession

Andrew is currently eighth in line, behind Prince William, his three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, as well as Prince Harry, along with his own children Archie and Lilibet.

But his distance from the crown jewels has not deterred Downing Street from trying to make sure the King's brother is out of the picture entirely.

Luke Pollard, a defence minister, was the first senior Labour MP to speak out in favour of the legislation - while searches of Andrew's home is continued over the weekend and into Monday.

Mr Pollard said it was the "right thing to do" with Andrew "only a heartbeat away" from the throne - but added it was only right once the investigation into the ex-royal had concluded.

But, joining GB News on Sunday, Sir Michael Ellis hit out at the plans, telling Michael Portillo: "It isn't worth a candle. In fact, it's morally wrong. I think it's also constitutionally wrong.

"And I think, Michael, that this is going to add to the Government's rather impressive tally of U-turns in due course."

But the constitutional expert suspected the plans would not even "get off the ground" due to a key impediment blocking the legislation from being passed.

He told the People's Channel: "It isn't just the UK Parliament that would have to pass legislation to interfere with the line of succession.

"It's all 15 Commonwealth realms, 14 others apart from us.

"And not only that, all seven Australian states and I believe the 10 provinces of Canada would have to pass their own legislation in their provincial legislatures."

The last time the UK completed such a "laborious" task was back in 2013 to pass legislation to allow women to take the throne without being under the rules of primogeniture.

The same bill allowed members of the Royal Family to marry Roman Catholics - without losing their place in line to the throne.

Noting the legislation took up to three years to pass, Sir Michael explained: "It took an awful amount of diplomacy and goodwill. It was fantastically expensive and extremely laborious, both diplomatically and administratively.

"And that was for a very good reason."

Meanwhile, he branded the legislation to cut Andrew from line would be "vindictive".

"There's no prospect of him becoming sovereign. You'd have to have a sort of real life kind Hearts and Coronets type scenario from that old film for that to happen.

"So one would simply be expecting 15 parliaments around the world to expend these vast resources for something that isn't going to happen.

"It would be a vindictive act. And let's not forget, he hasn't actually been convicted of anything. He hasn't even been charged with anything. So one would be taking an act out against an individual person without that person having been attainted in any way."

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter