I’m a monarchist. I’m a monarchist because it is in my view a better alternative than a republican system with an elected President or at least it is for the United Kingdom. The Monarch ideally should represent the ideals of the nation and be that mostly non-political aspect of society that is whom our armed forces, police and other public servants swear allegiance to. I’d rather those who need to swear such oaths give that loyalty to a Monarch who is mostly above politics and who represents national continuity than to a President who will undoubtedly be a political appointee or the occupier of a mostly political elected position. If you asked many Britons whether they wanted an impartial monarch or President Tony Blair or President Nick Clegg as head of state then I suspect that many would choose, possibly reluctantly, the idea of a monarchy above this pair or similar to be head of state.
But it’s clear that the House of Windsor is in trouble. This house, which was renamed Windsor from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha amid anti-German sentiment in the UK in 1917, is no stranger to scandal. Senior members such as the man who became Edward VII were gluttonous sexual libertines, whilst other members of the family more junior in prestige than the King or the Heir Apparent such as George V’s son Prince George the Duke of Kent had a string of affairs with both men and women and who was rumoured to be a heroin addict for a time. We cannot also forget Edward VIII who in a fit of petulant rage abdicated from the throne to marry an American divorcee and abandoned his duty to both his family and the nation as well as spending rather a worrying amount of time hobnobbing with Adolf Hitler and his circle. Then there were the relationships that the late Queen Elizabeth II’s sister Princess Margaret engaged in that were seen at the time as being scandalous and inappropriate by some. Of course we cannot have a précis of British royal scandals without mentioning the tumultuous marriage of Prince (later King) Charles to Lady Diana Spencer. The very public dissolution of that marriage and Princess Diana’s 1997 death in tragic circumstances in Paris have also caused negative attention to be focused on the House of Windsor. As time passes on we can see how the death of Princess Diana and the public reaction to it marked a great change in public attitudes to public emotionalism and a greater willingness among the public to criticise the actions of the Royal Family in general.
Whilst many of us will not fault the late Queen Elizabeth II’s attachment to duty it’s becoming clear that many of her children, with the possible exception of Princess Anne and latterly Prince Edward were and are dysfunctional in some way. Charles has shown some extraordinarily poor judgement with regards to who he admires and follows, such as the author and philosopher Sir Laurens Van Der Post who was later revealed to have a more flexible attitude to sexual consent than would be considered as proper and who impregnated a 14 year old girl who had been placed in his care. Charles has also shown bad political judgement by involving himself in nakedly political causes such as Net Zero and has done so at a time when many of the scientific and philosophical underpinnings of Net Zero are being shown to be both false and economically and socially dangerous.
It was possible in the past for the Royal Family to suppress bad stories about them or exile troublesome members of the family to some far flung corner of the Empire to get them out of the way. This is clearly not an option for the Royal Family in the modern world. There is no Empire to send out of control family members to and modern communications mean that censorship of the sort that kept the Abdication Crisis out of the British public’s eye for ages, is not possible.
It’s clear that the House of Windsor is in deep trouble and it is a form of trouble that is of their own making or the making of certain members of it.
The revelations about former Prince Andrew the equally former Duke of York and his relationship with disgraced American financier Jeffery Epstein are bad and may presage something much worse coming out over the coming months. What’s come out already is pretty bad and it’s not just the allegations of sexual entitlement and his attendance at parties held by Epstein, there’s also the rumours going around that Andrew got the job as Trade Ambassador with what was then the British Department of Trade and Industry because of interventions with the UK government by Epstein. Andrew was an utter disaster in that post and if it had to go to a member of the Royal Family then maybe it should have gone to someone else other than Andrew whose prickliness and sense of entitlement made him a potential diplomatic nightmare.
Whilst I concur that both Princess Anne and Prince Edward have made errors in their lives neither of them seem to have had the sort of scandal attached to their names as either the King nor Andrew have. Andrew’s entitled behaviour and the King’s failure to honour his ascension promise to put aside his personal interests now he was King are going to be constant stains on the image of the Royal Family. He didn’t even bother to change his Regnal Name to something less historically loaded than that of Charles (Civil War for Charles I and religious strife and a Catholic brother as heir for Charles II) when he was quite able to take a name with better historical connotations such as George which is one of his names.
Whilst I still have immense admiration for the work that the late Queen Elizabeth II did and how she handled the monarchy in a time of massive social and political flux she did produce two duds among her offspring. Andrew turned into a horrible, entitled man who put his own wants and needs before everything else and Charles has failed to have his late mother’s public reticence when faced with political issues.
One answer to the current problems could be a clean break with the problems of the past. Keep Andrew in the penurious exile to which he is going to have to become somewhat accustomed and have the King abdicate in favour of his son William. This is what might have to be done in order to stabilise both the House of Windsor and the monarchy itself. Although I understand that there are many who are none too keen on the idea of King William V because they perceive William as being too much of his father’s son, it’s the obvious action to take and William might surprise us by understanding that he needs to not repeat the errors made by his father both as Prince of Wales and as King.
The other option might be for Parliament to change the line of succession and appoint as monarch a member of the family more distant from the throne than the current line of succession. This could remove from the Royal Family the taint that they currently stained with. This has happened before when Queen Anne died without issue and the nearest Protestant with direct links to the UK monarchy was George the Elector of Hanover who later became George I. This would be a nuclear option for the UK Constitution and might cause many more problems than it solves.
It might be best to do what the British state does best and quietly remove from public life both the King and former Prince Andrew and all those associated with them from the monarchy and try to start afresh with William with the new king left in no uncertainty about what he is and what he is not allowed to do whilst monarch. This option would not affect the current line of succession too much as William and Catherine’s children would still be eligible for the throne.
The monarchy is not a frippery, it is an integral part of how Britain is governed even though the monarch themselves do not have the political power they once had. To protect the monarchy as an institution and protect and enhance its place in British life, some serious pruning might need to be done with a massive clear out of those members and their advisors who have performed their roles less than optimally. I want to see the monarchy survive and thrive but I cannot see how it can do that whilst the current situation carries on. Skipping to William early will not affect too badly such oaths that have been made to the king as they apply to both the monarch and ‘their heirs and successors’ whether those successors be natural ones created by the death of a monarch or where the successor has been chosen or the choice of monarch has been guided by Parliament.
I believe that the monarchy is in its worst situation since the Abdication Crisis and action by both the Royal Family and Parliament needs to be taken to stop the monarchy driving itself into a ditch.