timeThe royal family should have given up on Prince Andrew. But it’s not done yet. Two years ago he was ceremoniously stripped of his public duties, two dozen military titles, remaining charitable patronage and – sort of – the abbreviation HRH, which he apparently still gets to use, just not “officially”, Whatever it means.
The prince still owns the royal property but is in a state of internal exile, away from balconies and windows. It has been partially digested but not completely expelled.
Yet Andrew’s unofficial status – his royal responsibilities – has not changed. The unsealing of 900 pages of US court documents last week revealed new details about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, further weakening his case that he had no knowledge of the pedophile financier’s involvement in What all these young girls did. and further damaged the reputation of the entire royal family.
The new revelations are more damning than incriminating, but they put the prince back in the headlines. As a result, the United States is likely to continue legal proceedings against Epstein’s associates. The same goes for Netflix’s upcoming movies, scoopdramatization of landmarks news night Interview by Emily Maitlis.
Whenever these reminders surface, there are calls for King Charles to “do something” about his brother. But Buckingham Palace has nothing left to shame Andrew into resigning. Rumor has it that Charles’ next idea was to evict him from the Royal Villa and move from there into Frogmore Cottage, an admittedly smaller favored residence, on the understanding that he should fund his own security . But the plan appears to have fallen through.As one of Andrew’s “colleagues” put it era Last week: “Withdrawing security to get rid of your brother is a very unappealing proposition” and “In that family, blood is thicker than water.”
How do you solve a problem like Andrew’s? Charles’s solution lies in his ambition to “slim down” the monarchy. Release aunts, brothers, sisters and cousins from official duties, duties and money. There are two purposes here: first, to make homes cheaper and thus more popular; second, to make homes cheaper and therefore more popular. Second, reduce the chance of breeding troublesome relatives. The first one is fine, but the second one will fail. In fact, it has failed.
Do you need pinyin? A hereditary monarchy cannot select its members. Close relatives of the monarch will always be considered members of the royal family. No matter how much bureaucracy you strip away, or how carefully you revise their titles, Prince Andrew – like the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – will remain a member of the family and therefore will always be able to make The family’s reputation was in tatters. For Andrew, the responsibility isn’t his title, it’s his reputation, and that’s not going away. The family likes to call themselves “The Company,” as if they were a business. But in this industry, no matter how many 17-year-old sexual assault victims complain to HR, you can’t fire anyone.
In fact, plans to trim royal fat may backfire. Removing royal duties and protection from misbehaving relatives would instead remove constraints—giving them time, freedom and, importantly, the financial incentive to make their way in the world in other ways. Harry and Meghan wouldn’t need to build an embarrassing broadcasting career if they spent their time visiting jam factories and opening provincial shopping malls. Is allowing minor royals to live like wealthy celebrities (whose inherited wealth is enormous even without public perks) really the solution? Since Andrew was always going to become rich, famous and disgraced, perhaps a more appropriate punishment would be to fill his calendar with boring but valuable activities – the equivalent of long periods of community service, which is indeed what royal life is supposed to be about. Maybe picking up trash. Or take part in the Royal Variety Show.
If Charles was truly committed to tradition, he would have another answer to Andrew’s question. Monarchies have become quite weak over the past few hundred years: think of George VI, who allowed his Nazi-sympathizing brother, the Duke of Windsor, to serve as governor of the Bahamas during World War II. How to get rid of a troublesome sibling? In a time when families have become talismans of nostalgia over their long history, the answer is often more straightforward.
There are too many examples to list them all. Richard III had his nephews imprisoned, where they were murdered. Henry VII brought down more than one cousin. Elizabeth I executed her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. Edward IV killed his brother. Like the Mafia, royals have a long history of “laying off” members of the family business. Perhaps at this point, it would be best for Charles to quietly dispatch Andrew. For the benefit of the company. Genetic mumbo jumbo conforms to Darwinian logic.
Of course, the “Andrew problem” is actually a “royal problem.” Every generation of royals has its scum and its saints – who knows where the next Andrew will turn up? Next time he might be the eldest son. It’s a modern convention to talk about members of the royal family as if they’ve somehow earned their status – that they work hard and do their jobs – but that’s not the case. They may not have much power these days, but they still represent us. We like to think of the royal family as a comfort, a reassuring symbol of a bygone era, but they’re also a risk.
This article was revised on January 14, 2024. Elizabeth I executed her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, not “her sister Mary” as earlier versions suggested.
Martha Gill is an Observer columnist
Do you have any thoughts on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words for consideration for publication, please email us at: observer.letters@observer.co.uk
