It would be a surprisingly normal constitutional event to exclude Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession. It is a reminder that the sovereign of the United Kingdom is an elected hereditary post, not a purely hereditary one. This has been true since time immemorial and is not a modern invention, in spite of endless propaganda to the contrary.
Asser’s Life of Alfred begins with a genealogy which goes all the way back through the kings of Wessex to Woden, a pagan god, and from Woden back to Noah, and then finally to Adam. This was intended to show that Alfred benefited from a divinely arranged hereditary succession. This has always been an important myth about the monarchic succession in England.
It is, of course, false, as Alfred was chosen to be king rather than being the direct heir, as at least one of his elder brothers’ sons was still alive. The propaganda around kingship and the reality did not and does not match.
Indeed, the succession from eldest son to eldest son was not routine until the 13th century, with previous kings having been semi-elected or seized the throne by brute power. For example, the great men of the realm decided to elect Harold Godwinson as king following the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066, while in 1100 Henry I simply snatched the crown while his elder brother was out of the country. Interestingly, Henry married a descendant of Alfred the Great, which is a reminder that while heredity was not conclusive, it was helpful. Even at the end of the 12th century, John took the throne from Arthur, whom he then murdered.
