What does Prince Andrew have to do with political economy? Quite a lot.
In this video I explain how royal privilege reveals the deeper structures of inequality that run through Britain's politics and economy.
When the powerful decide their own punishment, democracy fails.
This is not about vengeance — it's about the rule of law, fairness, and whether power in Britain ever answers to the people.
This is the transcript:
What has Prince Andrew got to do with political economy, which is, after all, what this channel is all about? My answer is a very great deal indeed.
Political economy is about how privilege and power are used to avoid accountability when reallocating resources inside society to benefit those who are possessed of that privilege and power. And if royals aren't possessed of privilege and power, then they are possessed of nothing at all because that is what the whole point of their existence is, at least it seems as far as they are concerned.
Now we know that Prince Andrew has been disgraced. I know he denies all the charges against him. And for the sake of the record, I will record that fact. But he has already paid a £12 million settlement without accepting liability for his actions, and he has lost his Royal Highness title.
Now, he has chosen, supposedly, voluntarily, with his arm being, I suspect, twisted very heavily behind his back, to give up his titles, including the Duke of York and others in Scotland and Ireland.
But he has still got the title Prince Andrew, as of right, and the other titles have not been taken away. He has just been given the option of saying he has voluntarily agreed not to use them, and I don't think that this is good enough.
He's retaining privilege by deciding voluntarily what sanctions should be applied to him. And he's keeping the power by retaining the right to style himself as Prince Andrew and eighth in line to the throne. And as a consequence, he and the whole of the royal family are failing to accept their accountability for their responsibility to uphold the rule of law and, frankly, democratic society in this country when Prince Andrew's brother is, after all, our head of state.
Britain claims to be a democracy ruled by law, and yet what is happening here seems to suggest that some are somehow beyond the reach of that law. If privilege shields those with power from the consequences of their action, then justice collapses.
The monarchy cannot be exempt from the standards we expect of everyone else.
Hereditary power is particularly pernicious in this sense. It is embedded power within the framework of political economy. And it helps define the whole nature of inequality in Britain, saying that some are destined to be wealthy, powerful, rich, and to lord it over everyone else, and others are destined not to be in that situation.
It is eugenic by its very nature, and I find that whole idea utterly wrong. There is nothing inside our DNA that does ever predict that we should be powerful or we should be weak. What we've got are cultures that predestine, very largely, some people to those positions, and Prince Andrew was simply predestined by virtue of his birth to the Queen to be in the situation he's in. But when his elite status is protected, it legitimises inequality for everyone else.
Privilege breeds the idea of impunity. And if there's one thing that Prince Andrew now represents, it's that idea that he acted with apparent impunity and without any awareness that he could be held accountable for what he did, and that corrodes democracy.
So what should happen now? Quite simply, parliament should legislate to remove all of Andrew Windsor's remaining titles. He should be reduced to being a commoner, in other words. He has no privilege left to him because of what he has done. Accountability must apply to the royals as much as it does to everyone else.
And this has nothing to do with vengeance. It's a declaration that no one is above the law, and that the rule of law means rules for all. This is not about one man. It's not about Prince Andrew as such, although he's obviously the subject of this particular video. It's about whether Britain's economy and politics remain structured to protect privilege or are instead reorganised to deliver fairness and justice, which is what we require and which must start at the top if it is to be available to everyone else as well.
Democracy only survives when power answers to the people, and Prince Andrew, Andrew Windsor, is not doing that. And the only way he can be reduced to the level of anyone else and be shown that he is accountable as everyone else is, is by reducing him to the status of a commoner, which is all that he deserves.
So what do you think? Do you think Prince Andrew should keep his titles, even if he doesn't use them? Do you think he should be stripped of them? Do you think it doesn't matter at all? Do you think there are better things for us to be worried about? Or do you think that this is fundamental to the nature of our democracy?
There's a poll down below. Let us know what you think.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What effect Will digital ID have on democracy. I imagine royals and billionaires won’t be subjected to this surveillance? Or control of funds. Will the king still get cash in plastic bags or will it have to be gold.
Excellent points made Richard. The only thing I can see as a counter is the argument of innocent until proven guilty. Certainly the media are pushing this story for all they are worth, partly recognising and partly shaping (IMO) public opinion on this, but the public and the media are not a court of law.
With the King off to see the Pope, perhaps he can get some advice on what to do, given the number of catholic priests convicted of child sex crimes.
I have not found him guilty of a crime
He is guilty of exploitation of his role.
He should go.
Like you Richard, I am a supporter of Republic. It’s time for them to go.I suspect this is the beginning of the end. Elizabeth has gone. Harry is AWOL. And now Andrew is persona non grata. Has there been a reduction in the amount that we donate to these benefit scroungers? But child benefit, winter fuel allowance etc.
“When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?
From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, He would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.”
John Ball, priest, who took a prominent part in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
The above is from a sermon he preached to the rebels at Blackheath – one of the earliest recorded instances of republican thought ?
Post-revolt, he was hanged, drawn and quartered at St Albans in the presence of King Richard II on 15 July 1381. His head was displayed stuck on a pike on London Bridge, and the quarters of his body were displayed at four different towns. Such is the vengence of the Esthablishment.
Right was on their side.
But that might not have felt like much compensation.
I quite like this Gerrard Winstanley 1609-1676
The great creator Reason, made the earth to be a common treasury, to preserve beasts, birds, fishes, and man, the lord that was to govern this creation; for man had domination given to him, over the beasts, birds, and fishes; but not one word was spoken in the beginning, that one branch of mankind should rule over another.”
He had connections with the Quakers and, I learnt today, wrote the first mention of Christian Universalism in English theology. There is always something to learn
Thanks
New version of an old nursery rhyme:
The Grand Old Duke of York,
He paid 12 million quid
To somebody he’d never met
For something he never did.
I wish I could claim I wrote it, but I overheard somebody singing it on the Tube late last night.
🙂
The commoner is above the likes of Andrew Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, stripping him of socially constructed titles could be considered a promotion, which he is simply not up to.
In the Epstein story, we see the extremely wealthy and powerful, in particular from business and politics, utterly exploiting their position to abuse young girls. They are convinced that they are especially privileged and above the law. Andrew a loathsome hanger on.
I can’t help thinking that this also reflects their attitudes to how they conduct business, to life in general and to the rest of society. Trump is an extreme case. Johnson a poor imitation. Farage aspires to join them. Blair a more polished version.
The UK missed a trick with the passing of QE2. I fully acknowledge that she worked to the best of her ability for what she perceived to be the good of the country but a line should have been drawn under the institution with her demise.
I cannot believe that this ghastly family is still being supported. There are far more deserving projects.
We can’t say we weren’t warned. 🙁
1 Samuel 8 lists most of the reasons kings are a bad idea.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=CEV
The beginning of the chapter explains how corrupt political dynasties cause dissatisfaction and lead to the people wanting the glamour of monarchy. But surprise! The people don’t listen and are given what they want.
In a just society, we wouldn’t be arguing about Andrew’s titles, merely about the length of his sentence.
I really don’t see the Andrew question as being a result of the UK having a monarchy, as the problem would inevitably arise again should the UK abolish the institution, and choose to have a President as head of state instead.
Brits, and Englishmen, in particular are deeply wedded to a class system and that will prevail whoever is designated as head of state.
Having lived and worked in England for a number of years I was astounded to find how strictly hierarchical society there still is, as you are basically defined by your accent, where you live and whether you have been privately educated or not.
Socially in complete contrast to where I have lived for decades (in Scandinavia).
But unless we get rid of the monarchy that cannot change.
I doubt it. All the three Nordics have monarchies – and popular ones at that – and a class structure such as that of the UK simply doesn’t exist. It’s a mindset totally against Nordic mentality and I don’t see much hope for one such as that to take hold in the UK even as a republic.
[…] posted a video about power, responsibility and the abuse of both in the context of the demand that Andrew Windsor […]
Andrew reifies how this country is really set up to be honest. The edifice of a democracy in my opinion.
Justice has to be the foundation of a democracy. A bunch of people operating as if the rules do not apply to them is not a democracy and never will be.
An excellent assessment of a medieval pantomime still going on. Scotland held a poll showing people greatly in favour of getting rid of this insane establishment. Some of their ‘subjects’ eating out of food bins..unable to get on the house ladder…young people abandoned..NHS under pressure… etc etc..while they live in luxury and best of care but worst of all as you pointed out …a lack of ACCOUNTABILITY….. Recently an article on William being workshy. Turning up at an event here and there while grinning sympathetically is not enough.They are just people like you and me…flawed..as we can see. Perhaps they should return to their real name saxe coburg..changed deviously to Windsor during WW1…that would be a start to honesty… they have to go…they are just parasites on our back.
Lord Peter Mandelson: Still too privileged?
When the Royal Family are all over the news in a seemingly coordinated way it’s always asked what being kept out of the news
Mandelson is certainly a beneficiary. His defence by the political establishment lead by the Prime Minister using up considerable political capital. The news cycle has overtaken public calls for him to be stripped of his title. Still sitting on the Labour benches in the HoL.
All feels like a Greek Tragedy playing out in real time with characters facing the dire consequences resulting from their actions. To me Andrew is very much a secondary character. The recent plot line that’s intriguing is why was Starmer prepared to use so much political capital defending Mandelson? He poor judgement has been brutally exposed as has his dependence upon Morgan McSweeney who has emergence as a
modern Mandelson at the heart of this Labour government.
The spotlight should be shining equally as fiercely on Mandelson who, arguably, has done, and has the potential to do, far more damage to the country.