I posted a video about power, responsibility and the abuse of both in the context of the demand that Andrew Windsor be stripped of all his royal titles last night. The video was, in fact, the idea of my son, Tom, who felt it fitted perfectly into our themes, and he persuaded me. Traffic here and on YouTube suggested he was right.
This was also evidenced by the number of people voting. At 6.30 this morning, the polls on both sites looked like this. As usual, people here are a bit more radical overall than on YouTube, but also as usual, the broad sentiment is remarkably similar.
This is the YouTube poll:
And this was the poll result at that time:
As usual, about twenty times more people voted on YouTube than here.
So why note this? It is because I watched the news (on three channels) last night, and they all suggested that polling shows that the public wants Andrew Windsor stripped of his titles, but what none of them asked was whether the monarchy itself was the problem. I did, and found significant support for the fact that it was.
I do, of course, accept that my poll is not statistically valid: the sample self-selects. But the fact that so many opted to say the problem is systemic is still, I think, significant.
Has the mood changed? Is the monarchy now on its way to being consigned to history? I would rather hope so. The Windsors, or any replacement, need no part in our history. The eugenic belief that they have any role to play in the governing of this country is now out of step with public sentiment. It is time for a republic. And questions confirming that are the ones the media, no doubt, did not want to ask.
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!
I think you will find that as with many things the view of the monarchy as an institution is very age stratified, with older people still favouring it, and the younger generation increasingly believing it should go. The MSM is generally aimed at the older generation so is less likely to question it. I know you are going to say the readership of your blog is generally older, but we are also more left wing.
However, all there is increasing anger about Andrew’s actions and sense of entitlement and this could be shifting public opinion. Maybe Prince William can read the room sees the need to act much more decisively otherwise his own future is called into question. Andrew was the Queen’s favourite and Charles finds it much harder to act against her than his son.
The current Labour view that anything to do with titles is to do with the palace cannot hold. Andrew’s involvement with Epstein has both criminal and security concerns and Andrew seems not to understand or care about either.
I like your penultimate setence
What concerns me is that the abolition of the monarchy won’t come about as a result of a considered decision but in panic after a crisis
The real challenge is to decide what replaces it and that the nation gets to choose the replacement not whoever is in power at the time
I think after 15 years of austerity and being told there is no money, public sympathy with an institution that swallows public money despite massive wealth and King Charles not paying a penny of inheritance tax is a real problem. My question would be what purpose does it serve? And why is such a lavish lifestyle required? Other European constitutional monarchies live much more simply.
I’m not so sure about this to be honest.
We have been taught to worship wealth in this society of ours for some time and the Windsors and their cling-ons sit at the top of all this. I think Andrew may well be hung out to dry if the king sees fit to do so and gain a few more years of approval by being seen ‘doing the right thing’. But what is more worrying is what you allude to on another blog. There is a whole industry out there supporting the monarchy and its networks that seems impervious to change and has co-opted in the noveau rich Thatcherites who have gorged themselves on our country’s wealth. They’re dug in like ticks.
QE2 wasn’t, as far as I recall, involved in any personal scandals. Her descendents on the other hand have had plenty of them as well as divorces and affairs.
In the past when this occured there were few realistic options available in the UK when it came to governance. Now there are plenty. We may finally be witnessing the demise of our monarchy, though I suspect it will take another generation before it goes.
I also suspect it will be other people of power who will sacrifice the monarchy so they can maintain their hold.
Other than being rumoured to bail, Andrew out by 12 million to pay off Virginia and avoid what could have been very messy proceedings?
We live in interesting times! In Scotland the polling re independence shows A10 per cent rise in favour of indy if it becomes a republic.
Very good news
The point about QE2 was that she clearly understood what she needed to do even if she didn’t always
Other members of the Family Less so and now it’s all unraveling
The irony of course is that Andrew wasn’t allowed to marry Koo Stark who has always been discreet about their relationship unlike his ex wife
From the little I know, Andrew doesn’t sound like the nicest of people, probably not someone I would like to know. That, I think, is a result being raised in a highly dysfunctional family. This is a family who controls who the children can marry (Princess Anne, Prince Charles), controls what the children can do in terms of jobs. For all their privilege the royals are highly constrained. The relationships in that family are broken and dysfunctional. It’s hardly surprising that some of them don’t have pleasant personalities.
Andrew has not been proven to have done anything criminal. Everyone assumes he is a paedophile but he’s not had the chance to properly defend himself. Yes, he settled a civil suit. That’s because he was instructed to do so so as not to overshadow the queen’s jubilee. He denies wrong doing. Now he subject to further accusations from a dead author. So he cannot sue.
I’m saying that he has not been proven to do anything criminal (a low bar I agree). He’s not had the chance to defend himself and clear his name. Yet everyone assumes he’s guilty and pushes for punishment and humiliation. That strikes me as counter to natural justice.
This is a separate issue to his, undeserved, privilege. It’s separate to whether we should have a monarchy. These issues are, I think, being conflated. I find the whiff of a witch hunt against him a little distasteful.
I was talking about privilege. I am not accusing him of criminal activity, although he had decidely dubious relationships.
It might be that being relieved of ‘Royal Status’ would a liberation to many of the royal family.
I don’t think this is really about the cost. Many of the assets are historical buildings which i wouldn’t want to see flogged off to American billionaires or Saudi princes.
From what I recall most of the income from Crown Estates ( rent on farms, etc) goes to the Treasury.
The monarchy act a an hereditary Presidency with few formal powers. ( May well be some we don’t know about)
If we change , it should be because we think an hereditary Presidency is not desirable.
The monarchy has massive powers to intervene in legislation, and does do so, far too often, as investigation over the years has shown. .
He could have opted out of being a working royal decades ago, given up his titles then, and made his own way in life. Being on the civil list in receipt of public money wasn’t compulsory. He came out the Royal Navy with flying qualifications so there were options open to him, more than for many.
@Tim Kent
Andrew has made no effort to clear his name. US authorities wanted to talk with him about Epstein and he refused to cooperate.
If Andy Glücksburg was not the son of QEII, he would have been in front of a USA and/or UK jury so fast your head would be spinning.
All that has transpired in this Andy Glücksburg messy scandal, within the UK, has been the result of nothing but pure Royal privilege being exercised to the highest degree possible..
I doubt many people believe Andrew is a paedophile, certainly not everyone. Anyone that does is utterly ignorant of what the term means. On the other hand an abuser of vulnerable young women…. perhaps so.
Biggest monarchy crisis since the king abdicated in 1938
I hope it might be bigger
Snap.
1936
Poor Andrew, reduced to living, not in a palace or a castle, but a “lodge”.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/inside-prince-andrews-royal-lodge-36090821
I was surprised that this issue (stripping Andrew) has gained traction across all media outlets so quickly.
I am tired of the arguments: “but we don’t want to be like [America]/[Netherlands]”, etc.
Maybe now is a time to put out there alternative systems that allow State Representation without monarchy? I know the Irish system has merit, but are there other very positive alternatives?
Or would a discussion on the benefits of replacing the monarchy be a distraction?
“I was surprised that this issue (stripping Andrew) has gained traction across all media outlets so quickly. ”
He’s taking the hit for all the other people on the list. Notably the ‘unnamed “Israeli Prime Minister.”’
I agree. This whole farago is the “Circus” bit of “Bread and Circuses” because too many people are struggling to put the “Bread” on the table.
Distraction is the name of the game in these circumstances, and this is best exemplified by those politicians who have jumped on this bandwagon. It is more important to “deal with matters in Ruritania” -strip a royal personage of their fancy titles – than get to grips with real issues that matter, such as the cost of living crisis or the appalling failures and profiteering of privatized utilities that ought to be back under public control.
I have always had a similar attitude to the Monarchy as I have had to foxhunting. ( I disapprove, but I don’t think getting rid of it is worth the time and political cost.) Things may change. Particularly in a time of dire housing need I find the number of houses owned by the Monarchy offensive and the sight of the disgraced brother of the King squatting in a thirty room mansion on the Windsor estate especially so. I would like to see reform of the Monarchy happening within the context of a new federal constitution for the UK including abolition of the HOL and replacement by a senate of the regions. It could be designed so that either a Monarch or a President could fulfil the role of Head of State. That said, I do not think, with the populist right rising as it is, that this is an auspicious juncture in our history to abolish the Monarchy. Both Charles and William seem to have a useful green tinge and they might well provide some protection against the anti-democratic direction of a Faragist government. So I think, probably ,it should be William’s job to either reform the monarchy sufficiently to make it palatable in the 21st century, or prepare the nation for progress towards a republic. I don’t think George should expect to inherit. Hopefully Farage should have shuffled off this mortal coil by then.
The idea of federalism for the UK is raised yet again! The fact is that the so called union of 1707 was the union of 2 distinct kingdoms, Scotland and England, both nation states. We now know that it was a forced marriage, although we have deliberately been kept in ignorance. The Celtic nations are not regions. We all deserve to escape from our coloniser. England also deserves to stand on its own feet and to act for its people rather than interfering in foreign affairs.
Agreed
I was actually thinking of England becoming a federation of at least six separate regions. If Scotland or Wales wanted to also to be part of a greater UK federation that would be up to them, decided by plebiscite at the time a new constitution was devised. I don’t see the idea of federalism as some kind of imperialist ploy to hang on to conquered countries, but a way of freeing the rest of the country ( whichever that country is -a rump England or a greater Uk) from the economic dominance of London. Personally I would be sorry if the Union was to be dissolved, but recognise the right of the Scots and the Welsh to establish their own separate nation states, if they choose to.
England can have rgions.
Wales and Scotland are countries.
They are very different things.
And how would you redistribute incomne withn the regions? You would need to do so in England for decades to come?
“And how would you redistribute incomne withn the regions? You would need to do so in England for decades to come?”
For starters, each “Region” of England would have taxing powers just like each “State” in the USA has taxing powers with this tax revenue remaining with the “Region” to spend as they choose.
This has been heavily abused in the UK – woth low tax rates in high wealth areas and vice versa, so redistribution remains key.
There’s talk of Randy Andy being dumped here in Scotland – the Highlands. Apparently, Scotland is to be his punishment and him ours.
Scotland is already the dumping ground for the UK’s old munitions in the Beaufort Dyke (a deep trench) off south west Scotland.The Ministry of Defence has estimated that well over a million tons of munitions have been dumped there including 14,500 tons of 5 inch (127 mm) artillery rockets filled with phosgene dumped in July 1945. Phosgene was used as a chemical warfare agent; there’s no antidote.
The munitions are found on our west coast beaches from time to time.
Scotland is also the dumping ground for the UK’s nuclear submarine deterrent. Radioactive water poured into the loch and our River Clyde from its base. “Polluted water was released into loch near Glasgow because Royal Navy failed to maintain 1,500 water pipes, says watchdog” – Guardian, August 2025.
Scotland suffers enough from England’s trash; keep this guy where he belongs.
C3 is not Scotland’s king and neither is he king of Scots. His family are nothing to do with Scotland; none of them are welcome here in their kilts and their toories. They have very many houses and castles in England. Find an oubliette and incarcerate him there.
Although I expect that William getting the job next will be some years off (although presumably Charles won’t have the job for as long as his mum), I think another significant “twist” on the monarchy story will be William’s well documented disinterest in the Church of England. I’m not CofE myself, but it will be interesting to see how they go with a “supreme governor” who apparently doens’t care about the role – a significant difference to the late queen, who was very serious about it.
For all the talk of getting rid of the monarchy, the monarch, the government and the CofE are massively intertwined, and getting rid of the monarchy seems to have a lot of implications for everything else.
Of course it would be a wonderful opportunity to come up with a proper “constitution” rather than our “historical conventions”, and there’s a lot of other frankly stupid things I’d do differently. But it’s certainly not trivial to get rid of them.
Disestablish the Church.
It is long overdue.
Germany may well have some of the answers. They seem to have mechanisms to distribute income between richer and poorer Lander, which is an interesting word in this context, as it means “country or state”. Scotland and Wales are clearly countries, historically and culturally, although they haven’t been so legally for many centuries. Could you have a mix of countries and regions within a federal system? I don’t see why not. What would prevent it?
Some regions of the UK have very strong regional identities e.g the North East. The Germans also have city states. The German constitution, designed for them by us, has served them well since the war, enabling them to build a strong economy and up to now a strong democracy with decisions taken much more locally than here. It also enabled them to absorb East Germany. Was that a country or a region? The Germans got their chance to tear it all up and start again as the result of a national catastrophe. I hope we don’t have to experience anything similar, but I do think we can do better than this.
I question whether East Germany has been successully absorbed. There is very strong evidence that there are massive remaining divides, and it is the main base of the AfD because of anger at wealth disparity, so I think my point remains and may be reinforced.
The sooner the C/E disestablishes, the better.
All the arguments about “complexity” are just excuses.
If Parliament wants to do it, it can do it.
Non established churches manage fine without the civic link.
The country can manage fine without the formal link with the C/E
The important issue is creating a sustainable, inclusive, caring, just, workable, credible constitution with the active involvement and consent of the population that is based on our shared humanity rather than our birth, ethnicity, education or wealth.
And for NI, Wales, Scotland, and England to get the constitutional arrangements that suit their populations best, including secession if that’s what they want.
THAT is the complicated bit.
But it will take more than disestablishment to purge religion of that lust for power. Just look at the Republican orientated Baptists in the USA who have totally forgotten their independent and Anabaptist roots, in order to exert civic power via the Congress and White House. (I’m a UK Baptist, our last flirtation with civil power was during the English Civil War, thankfully we did not succeed.)
Thanks
Yes, I don’t disagree with that at all, but it also has a list of legal rights and responsibilities as big as that of the monarch. I would scrap the monarchy and disestablish – I’m just aware that neither is trivial…
If you look at global rankings for happiness, health, trust in government, equality and overall quality of life, the Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – almost always come out on top. Their governments are social democratic and parliamentary, meaning elected representatives make the decisions, and governments must earn public trust to stay in power. They combine open economies with strong welfare systems, so success is shared rather than concentrated in a small elite. People feel secure, included, and listened to, which builds long-term social stability.
Several of these countries still have hereditary monarchies, but the way they handle them is very different from the UK. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, the monarchy is deliberately kept small. Only the monarch, their spouse, and the direct heir usually have official roles. Cousins, uncles and grandchildren don’t get dragged into public life or rely on public funding, which helps avoid scandal, accusations of privilege, and endless media drama.
These monarchs are almost entirely ceremonial. They don’t appoint prime ministers, intervene in politics, or even hint at political opinions. In Sweden, reforms in 1974 removed every remaining political power from the king. Prime ministers are effectively chosen by parliament, not “invited to form a government” by the monarch. So the monarchy becomes a neutral, uncontroversial symbol of national unity rather than a player in the system.
Nordic royal families also live more modestly and present themselves in a low-key, relatable way. Their public image lines up with the region’s strong belief in equality and social cohesion. They are seen as part of the culture rather than above it.
By contrast, the British monarchy is bigger, more ceremonial, has more titles floating around, and keeps multiple “working royals” in the public eye, bringing more chances for controversy, financial criticism and scandal.
The Nordic formula – high-trust democracy that delivers for its people, combined with a monarchy that stays quiet, modest, and strictly out of politics – helps create extremely stable, satisfied societies. The monarchy supports national unity rather than distracting from it.
If the UK monarchy moves towards the Nordic model, maybe it can survive and be respected again. If it doesn’t, its days are numbered.
There are of course challenges in the Nordic countries – stress levels, demographics, climate change. Nevertheless, as well as the Monarchy, maybe our Government should think about heading in the Nordic direction too……….
Their governments have long ceased to be social democratic. Many have been quite right wing.
In recent years, some Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden and Finland) have seen a rise in right-wing and populist-right parties, and in Finland a right-leaning coalition is currently in power. However, I think these shifts have not yet undermined the core strengths of Nordic governance. Democratic institutions, welfare systems, high trust, and political stability largely remain intact. The right-wing parties in the Nordic region often still support much of the welfare model, though they may push stricter policies on issues like immigration. There is some risk of future strain, but so far, fingers crossed, I think the Nordic system remains fairly robust.
Regarding the “established Church” issue, some Nordic countries historically had Lutheran state churches, but most have moved toward greater separation of church and state. Sweden fully separated church and state in 2000, and Norway did so in 2017 (though the monarch must still be Lutheran). Denmark and Iceland still have national churches, but they function more as “people’s churches” – culturally rooted, widely recognised, and state-supported, yet largely autonomous and without strong constitutional power.
Overall, the link between monarchy and church in the Nordic countries is now mostly symbolic, set within a broadly secular, egalitarian society where the church is seen as belonging to the people rather than governing them.
Sounds like a plan.
Apropos nothing in particular – The German church-state relationship carried over in 1945 into the East German state. The situation was explained to me by the son of a Lutheran pastor and the son of a Pentecostal pastor who visited our church just after the Wall came down. They were treated very differently, as the Lutheran’s father was effectively a state employee and had more privileges.
Richard,
I am aware that my replies on this must be putting me way over the word limit, so will not be offended if you do not publish this further response. I notice in this morning’s Guardian that George Monbiot has an article pointing out how our unwritten constitution makes us very vulnerable to a Farage government and calling for a citizens convention to set the ball rolling on that. This is the second time in a week i have heard that call- the other one from Rory Stewart who is from a completely different political background to George Monbiot so it obviously has appeal across the political spectrum. The issue of whether or not we have a written constitution is of course different from whether that constitution should be a federal one as I have advocated, but that would be one of the subjects for discussion. This seems to me to be a positive idea which might bring some hope of combating the dangerous situation we are in. Would you join your voice towards the calls for a citizens convention?
I doubt we have time for that.
We just need PR now.
Maybe Caerphilly will be the tipping point.
We have time. The German constitution took under a year to draft. Changing the voting system alone is not enough.