King Charles had no choice but to spare Andrew

The British monarch might be taking solace in his decision to finally sever ties with Prince Andrew, yet whispers persist about his action.

Some royal commentators and critics questioned King Charles' move, asking whether it was a bold stroke of justice or a soft landing for a brother in disgrace.

Royal expert Robert Jobson weighed in on the situation, explaining why Charles has done the right and only thing he could do regarding his disgraced brother, despite calls for a tougher action.

Already stripped of his military titles, royal patronages, HRH status, and princely title itself after years of Epstein scandal fallout, some argue it is absurd that Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne. So why won't Charles finish the job? 

In his piece for Hello!, Jabson wrote: "The answer is simple: he can't."

He continued: "Removing Andrew from the line of succession is not something that can be sorted by royal decree. It needs an Act of Parliament. Not just MPs at Westminster too."

The expert went on saying that under the statute of Westminster 1931, all 15 Commonwealth realms – countries where the British monarch still reigns – must agree and vote it through their parliaments.

That means identical legislation passing through Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and eleven other independent parliaments.

Jabson tried to reveal the bitter truth that all power does not belong to the monarch, adding that he did what he could.

"Targeting Andrew specifically amid the ongoing scandal with no under-oath evidence could prove far trickier and more tortuous. One hostile realm could veto it and the whole process collapses."

Andrew, once Charles's spare and born second in line to the throne, is 65, now eighth in line, and sinking lower with each royal birth. Barring some awful royal family tragedy, Andrew will never approach the throne.