The significance of the charlatan previously known as Prince Andrew being stripped of all his royal titles and being thrown off the Windsor estate yesterday should not be understated.
The point is this: if someone who was born the son of a monarch can be stripped of all his titles, even though it was said that to remove that of prince was impossible because it was his by birthright, then what is made clear? It is that all the charade and flummery of the so-called royal family, and all the conventions of monarchy, are just made up.
There is nothing natural about them. There is no superiority associated with them. All of the ridiculous pageantry is just a game created to imply the right to privilege, not just for the selected few directly involved in this farce, but for all those in the hierarchies of power whose supposed rights to privilege stem from the hoax of royalty.
In fact, there are no such rights. Those involved are just people. They can be stripped of their titles and wealth. They are then left named as we all are (although in this case with made-up surnames) to indicate that they are no more, or less, than others when the pretence is stripped away.
What is more, if it can be stripped from one, it can be stripped from others. The game of deference, in which it has been demanded that we all take part, could end in that case.
The royals, the lords, the ladies, the knights and dames, and all those who hold status in orders of the empire could just be addressed as the equals of all others, as they are.
The process of extraction by deference, which, like all similar processes, seeks to secure an unearned rent to favour a few at cost to many, would be over.
The eugenicism, with the message deep within it that some are by right better than others, with those others being required by implication to acknowledge their inferiority on a regular basis, would be revealed.
Why does that matter, and why is the divesting of a person once second in line to the throne of his titles of significance? Simply because it makes clear that change is possible.
Only two weeks ago, we were told he could not be stripped of the title ‘prince'. It was claimed to be his by birthright, and now apparently it is not. The falsehoods have, as a result, been revealed. There is no birthright at all. There is just a pernicious hierarchy of power intent on exploitation, revealing its willingness to be ruthless in pursuit of that goal when it thinks the pitchforks might be out.
In doing so, it reveals that the instinct to preserve its privilege is also all that matters to it. This, after all, has always been the business of ‘the firm'.
And now the myth of the firm is shattered; its goodwill has been destroyed. The desirability of conferring honours on those unsuited to enjoy them as they have abused their positions is being questioned. Even the finances are open to review and doubt.
The truth is, the purpose of this entity has gone. Without the mystique, there is nothing left, and that aura departed some time ago. Just give it a little time for the rest of the edifice to crumble, as it surely will.
The significance of all this is, however, deeper than that. We live in a country beset with issues because of the power structures of privilege embedded within it. Even the supposed United Kingdom takes its name from the monstrous idea that one person could rule over all. That is no longer true.
But in that case, none of the other assumptions of entitlement need hold true either.
Power does not mean unaccountability.
Wealth does not provide the right to be taxed lightly.
Prejudice cannot be ignored because it is embedded in supposedly immutable customs.
If we are all just commoners, and myths are ignored, the veil of ignorance is lifted, and justice, in the sense described by John Rawls, can be created so that privilege is first of all given to those with least, so that they have a chance, and not to those with most, so that they might have more.
Ultimately, it is this inversion of priorities that the stripping of the titles from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor makes possible. If he is now just a commoner, like the rest of us, everyone not only can be, but is just that, despite the games some will still play to pretend otherwise, and that game is almost over.
Royalty is no better than the rest now. And moreover, what it has is not inherited, or birthright, or superior. It is just a deceit intended to fool us, at cost to those considered by the privileged to be common, which in their value system is the ultimate term of abuse, and which everyone reading this will no doubt be in their view.
But the day of the commoner has come. One of the supposed royals has been cast as such. So now, with the veil lifted, we need to rebuild anew, knowing that all that was claimed impossible can be done after all. And that knowledge matters.
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 remember my mother taking me to see the queen open a new building near where we lived in 1960. I have never seen the need for a royal family.
I went to a fundraiser for striking ambulance drivers in the early 1980s in London.
Billy Bragg came on stage and said ‘The queen mother should be given a bus pass and told to **** off’
I agreed with him then and now.
I agree with everything you have said, but ironically, I think the motivation around these actions was self preservation of the monarchy driven by William. Charles alone would not have done this, both out of loyalty to his last mother, the Queen and Andrew being his brother. William has no such loyalties and wants to save what he sees as his inheritance. My personal view is that it is already too late. Support for the royal family is very age aligned, so is naturally falling and public sympathy is not with Andrew and his sense of entitlement. We shall see.
I agree – his chance of being king is declining by the day.
Terrific analysis, thanks.
The challenge of course is what do we replace the monarchy with?
I fear that the institution could collapse rapidly to the benefit of those in power rather than as a considered move transferring power to democratic control
What function does the monarchy serve? There are plenty of very democratic republics in the world, and many European countries have constitutional monarchies that don’t live as grandiose lives, and demand the deference our royal family do.
Thank you and well said, John.
From my time in regulatory policy / as a lobbyist, I felt the left to be like livestock in a field as the (right wing) high speed train sped by. The left all too often just isn’t bothered, with the exception of Palestine, and makes no attempt to understand and learn. I include Corbyn in that and think Corbyn is an impediment to the left’s progress.
The City and Bank of England, including Bailey, are engaging Farage. Reform and its donors and advisers, including the US Heritage Foundation, are getting ready. The left is distracted by the Reform councillors and missing the much more malign activities in London.
Colonel, speaking as someone who would be classed as being “on the left”, I can tell you that getting access to those close to the “lever of power”, or the “movers and shakers” is far more difficult is you are associated with ideas deemed progressive or left. I say that because as an academic and researcher me and the group I worked with for many years within what was then known as European Group for Public Administration (and later in a separate group at the OU) tried on many occasions to get access to politicians, policy makers and advisers to discuss policy proposals and projects. But with some exceptions (if you were lucky with some of the project officers in the European Commission), we always lost out to people putting forward proposals that were clearly aligned with mainstream neoliberal policy and thinking. I suspect Richard has experienced much the same.
So, the point I’m making is that ‘not engaging’ or ‘preparing’ is, in my experience and that of many others similarly “tarred” as being of a certain political/ideological standing, not through choice or lack of effort. And I’d add, that at least part of the reason that so many on the left (certainly in academic circles) went so heavily into what we now refer to as “identity and cultural politics/issues” is that seemed (and often was) areas of politics and policy making where at least some progress could be made. That this went too far, in the opinion of many now, at the expense of focusing on economic or broader political concerns is fair criticism in my opinion, but understandable given the reality of penetrating the neoliberal fortress in which our politics is held captive.
In farirness, for a while taxjustice was the order of the day, so I did not suffer that way. Other issues did.
“The challenge of course is what do we replace the monarchy with?”
Why do we need to replace it with anything? They don’t do anything useful to the state. Why replace them?
My own preference would be a directly elected president, on the model used by Ireland. Every president there from Mary Robinson onward has recreated the role in their own image, within the limits laid down in their constitution.
My preference too
My preference too. Ireland has set a good example. Choosing someone respected, known, loved by the people of all sides, someone without obvious political /economic preferences. Someone from the non political world.
“The challenge of course is what do we replace the monarchy with?”
Quite. The great problem with the Brexit referendum/debate is that it was about where we shouldn’t be (i.e. in), rather than where we should be. In the same way, any discussion over replacing the monarchy should not be about how bad it is, but in some decision that ‘this’ will be better – which means deciding and knowing what ‘this’ is.
I don’t think there is an easy solution to the Head of State issue. Both the German and Irish Presidencies have had scandals associated with them, The Poles are in a difficult situation at the moment with the Head of Government from one party and the Head of State from another. Some states such as the above separate the Presidency and the Head of Government. Some, such as the US combine the roles. ( Things not working out too well there at the moment. )The advantage of having an elected President is that their term is limited, so they can, theoretically at least, be got rid of at the ballot box. What I am looking for is a solution that strengthens democracy against a future fascist government, I would accept the Monarchy if I thought it would do that. If they look as if they would meekly cooperate I would prefer a Republic with a principled person as its head. Someone like David Attenborough or Gina Miller ( not Tony Blair, or another previous PM)
I can imagine a Farage government coming into conflict with the Monarchy and seeking to abolish it. If that were so I would be in favour of the Monarchy. If Farage were to come out in favour of a Republic I would be agin it.
Same questions being asked now (what do we replace the royals with) as were asked after the execution of Charles I. Odd that in +350 years there is no answer. Make UK a republic and elect a president. 2nd chamber with sortition 1st PR. Then land reform – land ownership remains at the heart of the problem. The soverign currently owns ALL land in the UK. All of it. The clue is in the name: “freehold” (tech description: ownership of land in fee simple – a medieval concept – see Cahills “Who Owns the World – for more detail).
As for all the various royal bits & pieces – some museums, some convert into housing for the homeless. Give the assorted royals £1m worth of property or free passage to ….. Hollywood, Whatever.
While I agree with most of what you say, I hesitate about being wholehearted. “The title XX can never be revoked – until it is” makes me wonder about a precedent being set for revoking other rights that we enjoy. For example, people cannot legally be rendered stateless by having their nationality revoked … perhaps until it is revoked by a government that takes a cherry-picking view of the law. It is a melancholy thought that a route to that happening is all too conceivable, even in the UK. And indefinite leave to remain is even more fragile.
Noted
“people cannot legally be rendered stateless by having their nationality revoked … perhaps until it is revoked by a government that takes a cherry-picking view of the law. It is a melancholy thought that a route to that happening is all too conceivable, even in the UK”
It has already happened. Shamima Begum, 2019.
Shue had Belgian nationality as well. They argue she was not rendered stateless. The risk is to people like me.
Fascism doesn’t need a precedent. It just needs POWER.
Whether through elections, revolutions or invasion and conquest, is unimportant.
Our current parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy are perfectly capable of taking us into fascism if we let them.
There are better systems of government than ours, but NO “system” can guarantee us a secure democratic future. Our government has been dismantling our own “safeguards” for about 45 years, with kitchen and sofa cabinets, expansion of the Cabinet Office into a shadow government, allowing money into party politics, obsessing over terrorism and security, increasing physical and electronic surveillance and the associated data harvesting, and repressing protest. Reform is just aiming to add the finishing touches that the Tories didn’t manage because of their own toxic incompetence.
In fact, incompetence may perversely, be our salvation. For all his beer-swilling photo ops, Fa***e couldn’t organise a booze-up in a brewery, although he could spill an awful lot of (our) beer in the process.
Thank you, Robert.
I have come across Farage at Lord’s, Ascot and in Strasbourg.
Beer is only for when he’s at the pub. His tipple is champagne.
That pub and pint schtick and wheeling out of Anderson is only to divert attention from the toffs who run Reform. That toff dominance and snobbery has caused friction in UKIP, the Brexit campaign and even Reform.
80% of Reform MPs are privately educated. It’s similar at their HQ.
You do not surprise me
I wonder if the media will now refer to him as ‘The Andrew formerly known as Prince’ ?
🙂
The Sun has done so. Bless them. (Just this once).
Yes, just this once, the Scum is right about something. They need to be, to make up for all the poisonous crap they and the rest of Murdoch’s vile ’empire’ have produced down the years.
Ha ha, brilliant
What is wrong with simple Andy Windsor?
A sobering reminder of what is real and permanent, compared with what is illusory, and temporary.
It is not only the conventions around royalty that are illusory, those that control our parliament are illusory too – self-imposed shackles that cripple our democracy. Latest example – not only can Dawn Butler MP not be allowed to call a liar, a liar, she is told that convention prevents her calling a racist, a racist.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-10-27/debates/20185D21-EB3A-4AFA-A381-AFEAE66B4627/PointsOfOrder?highlight=offended#contribution-210B6171-3364-45A7-BD89-4A1AEFF9DB25
It wasn’t Sarah Pochin, white Reform MP who got rebuked, but black MP Dawn Butler, all because of “convention”.
Racism is becoming publicly acceptable. We all need to work out effective, creative, clear and probably costly, ways of countering it, especially when it happens in our personal presence – at home, at work, on the street, or the omnibus.
I think next time, I might start with, “So, why does the colour of someone’s skin matter to you?” and see how the conversation develops.
This is absurd.
For most of my life, the Queen was there, doing the job she felt it her duty to do. Both she and Charles have had to entertain many people, including Trump. I observe that 3 of the Scandinavian countries have monarchies. Are they seen as a good alternative figurehead to a president? Useful in international relations and diplomacy? As the years have gone by, more information is available on the immense wealth and privilege enjoyed not just by ‘working’ royals. Has Charles told his estate managers to reduce the rents paid into his coffers by ambulance services and prisons? I’m feeling ambivalent, my rosy specs have hit the dust, but I still wonder if a core of hard-working royals might have some purpose, especially when things look hairy. I don’t want revolution, and I also worry about the power vacuum. The minted and mighty are not likely to let go of pole position. Welfare state and green future first for me. And more taxation on the very wealthy would not go amiss.
Does the average person in the UK truly know and understand the real history of how royalty got to be where they are today? I suspect not. Today’s royalty has been packaged in a way that makes them almost “one of us” when nothing can be further from the truth. How did they get to be where they are? Go back far enough in time, and you find, tribalism, war, killing, murder, elimination of rivals, fear, nastiness, and strength through power. Historically, they are no different than Mafia families, and have the same ruthless streak. The fact is, you don’t get the level of power and privilege that royalty has by being nice. Charles may come across as a decent enough individual, but he is only there because in the past, individuals in his bloodline were more ruthless and powerful than others.
It will add to the pressure in the United States to publish the Epstein files. The story is not done yet.
The best piece I have ever read about the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s, and their breed. Your phrase,” Instinct to preserve its privilege”, says it all.
Thanks
The Royal Family are nothing but parasites, and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is the biggest parasite. It was reported last night that he will in future be living off an allowance from king Charles. Why doesn’t he go and find a real job, and while he’s looking for a job, he can apply for universal credit.
He will in February be of current state pension age and already receives a naval pension.
I think he spends rather more than that provides. He has a £3 million pa police security bill to pay.
“he will in future be living off an allowance from king Charles.”
Perhaps it’s just to tide him over till he reaches state pension age in February?
🙂
Everything you say is correct. But although the young are much less pro monarchy than the old – people sort of know that its all based on illusion – but they sort of go along with it. The monarchy has been surviving existential crises for centuries – not least in 1936. I think the best that can be hoped for is a gradual transformation into a more Danish bicycling monarch – with the firm dispersed and dispensed with.
The UK constitution is such a mess – allowing all the political bought and sold corruption etc, the self destruct brexit ‘advisory/non advisory referendum , that I cant see how it could ever seamlessly progress to an elected presidential system like Ireland.
Well, there I was thinking that the name ‘Mountbatten’ was too good for Andrew and that it was slur on the real Mountbatten who was lionised in my time.
Anyhow, I went on line mentioning ‘Mountbatten’ and ‘skeletons in cupboard’ in the search and ……oh dear, VERY oh dear…..I replicate it here from a Google search – and there is also info about a rather open marriage too. But the following is just a disaster:
‘Child Sexual Abuse Allegations
More serious and recent “skeletons” that have emerged posthumously concern allegations of child sexual abuse.
Kincora Boys’ Home: Mountbatten has been linked to the notorious Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast, which was at the center of a major sex abuse scandal in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Accusations: A former resident, Arthur Smyth, has alleged that Mountbatten raped him twice when he was 11 years old. Other former residents have also come forward with similar claims of abuse or being trafficked to locations near Mountbatten’s summer home, Classiebawn Castle in Mullaghmore, County Sligo.
FBI dossier: A secret FBI dossier from the 1940s, uncovered by historian Andrew Lownie in 2019, described Mountbatten as a “homosexual with a perversion for young boys”, which led some officials to consider him “unfit” for certain military commands.
Legal action and cover-up claims: The allegations have led to legal challenges against government bodies in Northern Ireland. There are also accusations that British security services and police were aware of a powerful paedophile ring involving Mountbatten and others, but orchestrated a cover-up because some of the Kincora staff were intelligence assets.
These recent allegations have significantly altered the public’s perception of the man previously known primarily for his distinguished naval career and role in the independence of India. ‘
Dear me…………..
Thank you, PSR.
Early this year, a victim of Kincora publicised these allegations in the Irish media. Not a peep on this side of the water.
I have lived in Buckinghamshire most of my life. Allegations about Saville being Britain’s Epstein and his own perversion have been around here since the early 1980s, if not earlier.
A dozen years ago, I spoke to a retired official who had served at No 10 under Thatcher. We were at a conference in Switzerland. When I mentioned where I came from, we briefly discussed Saville. Thatcher was made aware, but carried on regardless.
You do not surprise me.
I don’t know what the fuss is about – come on folks get with the agenda.
Epstein: white poor people used and abused by the rich (& the victims used to recruit others).
Kincora (indeed many (most?) UK boys homes: the inmates used and abused by those with a “taste for that sort of thing” & usually either rich or powerful
1890s: Eddy prince of Wales: caught in a brothel near Westminster “specialising” in 12 year olds – popular with – the rich & powerful
Saville was part of what passes for “UK culture” a cheeky chappie (apparently so was Fred West) with good connections with – the rich and powerful.
Poor people don’t have a voice – which is why they are: a resource – particularly their children. Witness the legal grind that victims of Esptein had to go through (& keep in mind – FBI had plenty of tapes etc during most of the procedings. I find the world an increasingly inhumane place.
I have posted this, because the attitude is true and exactly what Victoria Giuffre described.
Mike – my thoughts exactly.
The royals must think we were born yesterday. Andrew is just another one out of the way to me, sacrificial lamb or not. Let’s get rid of the rest of them.
It gets you thinking about pleonexia though – that, being afflicted by it is not just about being corrupted by and about money, and status, but that it could also corrupt sexual behaviour as well, their attitudes to peoples personal things, property, means of subsistence and personal space, privacy intimacy – completing ignored if not subjugated by a sense of entitlement and superiority.
You are there to be taken in their eyes. Your house, your wages, pension, car, health services, kids, your body, your environment. None of it belongs to us. It belongs to them.
Shocking.
Disgusting.
Unacceptable.
PSR — and don’t forget his ‘performance’ in India ??
These developments may well turn out to have set rather more than a symbolic precedent. A number of other prominent names around the globe associated with Epstein one way or another might be removing the House of Windsor from their Christmas card list. Especially one beginning with T.
Much to agree with (to use a Richard Murphyism). On which point, you’ll very much enjoy this segment from Lawrence O’Donnell on the same subject, and being as scathing as you are about the supposed “God Given” rights of our royalty (which, as he points out, are of German heritage – with Windsor being a made up name adopted when we were at war with Germany in 1917).
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-trump-is-using-the-government-shutdown-to-shut-down-the-epstein-files-251041349617
Note: the title in the link doesn’t do justice to the range of material covered in the segment.
I will watch, later.
I note that Lawrence referred to Charles as ‘King of England’. That was appropriate because Charles is not King of Scots as he did not take the oath as required in Scotland. Was that due to the fact that in Scotland the people are sovereign whereas in England there is parliamentary sovereignty? In Scotland we can depose a king and have done so in the past. Perhaps after independence!
The Press is making a big fuss of the Andrew story as if it is something unprecedented. The Windsor family, though, has a history of sacrificing family members who might threaten the survival of the institution. As such William is bang in line with his forbears. Think George V and his withdrawal of the asylum invitation to the Tsar his cousin during the Russian revolution. They were afraid that such a move could spark off revolutionary sentiment here. The Russian royal family perished, but the Windsors endured, Think the Abdication crisis in 1936. Edward was dispatched abroad and not spoken to again. Under the last Queen we had a period of stability which made us forget that there have always been periods of unpopularity for the Monarchy, including Queen Victoria. Had we been a sensible country we could have had a discussion, conducted perhaps via citizens assemblies, when the Queen died about whether the Monarchy was to continue and if not what should replace it. As it is the fate of the Monarchy could get thrown into the messy toxic stew which is our politics at the moment. Clearly, if it is to survive at all, the Monarchy will have to have its finances and its functions overhauled., perhaps as part of a new written constitution. I suggest one suitable gesture they could make at the moment would be to make over most of their property wealth to a Sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the nation. Why DOES our Monarchy need so many palaces?
Thank you, Sheila.
My paternal grandfather, his brother and their cousins came from Mauritius to serve in the RAF during the war.
They recall talk by local comrades of the resentment and even heckling of the royals, especially after an air raid in the East End. When the Queen said the palace had been bombed, someone shouted back which one.
My rellies were not surprised by the Labour landslide some years later.
Thank you, Sheila.
I agree with you about the property and sovereign wealth fund.
Unfortunately, Wall Street and oligarchs like Gates and Dyson covet them. I reckon they are even whispering quietly in Sturmer’s ears as I type.
As I say above, the left is asleep.
Most of the history I’ve read think it was Lloyd George, the PM, who vetoed the Tsar.
George V did make a very big intervention in 1931 when MacDonald went to the King to resign as the Labour cabinet were split on cutting welfare benefits.
George suggested that the cuts ( being demanded by American bankers who were loaning us money ) would ‘come better from a Labour man’. He asked if MacDonald would lead a National govt. I have never been able to find any evidence as to whether it was his idea or he was put up to it. George Vth was a simple man but with a strong sense of duty in a conservative framework. It is suggested by some that George was mindful of cousin Wilhelm ( the Kaiser, in exile in the Netherlands ) and cousin Nicholas murdered by the Bolsheviks. A fear of revolution was felt by a number of wealthy people.
In the event a National Govt. was formed from the Conservatives, with some Labour and Liberals -known National Liberals (eventually to be merged with the Conservative and National Labour ( who to much of the Labour movement were traitors )
In the event an election was called and the Coalition got just 50% -the only time since the mass franchise that has happened. I don’t suppose we will even know how far the King acted independently.
Just to add, in response to the Colonel, my first father in law was an Air Raid Warden (despite being disabled ) in the East End where he lived. He told me “apart form the Communists the Royals were popular”. Impressions vary.
The Hanoverian concept of monarchy has surely ended. I think it died in the 90s. We are seeing the consequences of its decline.
A waste of space has to move house and change his name. Meanwhile: How many children went hungry last week? How many patients were treated in hospital corridors? How many times did social care fail? Where are our priorities? Why are we stuck with a chancellor who believes she can do nothing because the earth is flat?
Very good questions.
I would like to suggest a slightly different viewpoint which has two aspects.
1. The Royal pageantry draws visitors to this country and thus there is an economic benefit. I cannot quantify it, but would suggest it is significant.
2. Our Head of State is the King who has a neutral role to play, and must not openly express any political or contentious views. (OK, it’s a close run thing and does show a potential/significant weakness). But the most important thing is that, in his role as HoS, the King denies that position to anyone else. The alternative would seem to be an elected HoS – imagine who we could get? Some who, until elected, expressed extremist left or right wing views. Then that person is expected to keep quiet; somehow I doubt it. As HoS, his/her views would be known and I think it would form a bias to the background hidden modes of exercising power that any HoS will have.
Thus, I don’t see this as being at all straightforward. I certainly would not want to see any change just because current events have opened a door.
I’ll forego a small amount of foreign earnings for a decent society. That is a pricve well worth paying,
My cousin in Australia told me about the 1999 referendum on the Monarchy.
She said a large number of people took the view that the Queen had powers she didn’t use. If you had a bloody politician they would use them. The result was roughly 55% keep the Crown to 45% not doing so. It would not be the same today, she said a couple of years ago, if only because more Australians have no connection with the British Isles.
Honestly Rich!
Are we expected to believe that the absence of a monarch will cause the collapse of tourism in the U.K.?
The French decapitated their Royal family and now all us plebs can shell out a couple of € and wonder at will round the Palace of Versailles. France gets more tourists per year than we do.
I would never advocate violence to anyone but I do think we should send them all off to rule a previously uninhabited Island in the arctic and see what that does to the economy of both islands.
Would South Georgia do?
I was going to suggest Governor of S Georgia but RJM beat me to it! He could wear a penguin-plume hat on ceremonial occasions. That is the one part of the world where he did something useful back in the 80s. In between wearing dress uniform he could run a (chaperoned) air taxi service.
🙂
You are of course, a hypocrite. You are supposedly a Quaker and they hold their ‘testimony of equality’ which rejects titles. Yet you puff up your honorary ‘5 Rice Krispies packet tops’ ‘Professor’ title every opportunity you get!!
It is my job title
This is my work
I never use it socially, ever
The title ” Professor” does require its holder to put in significantly more effort in order to hold it than the title ” Prince” does, which merely requires the holder to be born into a particular family. I see a problem with hereditary titles, not ones earned in the course of a life’s work.
Nice one Sheila!
Unlike the birthright, our host here (you would do well to remember that he moderated in your favour), has earned his title, through years of work and educating others and continues to do so.
What have you done for us lately? Muppet!
It is a warning label, indicating that on certain subjects he might know what he was talking about. Though I was for many years a union rep for then AUT, now UCU. I sometimes sat at conferences wondering to myself how so many clever people could be so spectacularly stupid.
Essential reading – “And What Do You Do? What the Royal Family Don’t Want You To Know” by Norman Baker the former LibDem MP.
As ever, Martin Rowson hits the nail on the head and manages to kill two birds with one stone:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/oct/31/martin-rowson-prince-andrew-cartoon-andrew-mountbatten-windsor
Personally I have a neutral view when considering the value of the royal family. They can certainly rise to deal with the biggest international social occasions. As for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, he has certainly let us all down and his family. Even the name Mountbatten is made up, it is just an English translation of Battenberg – to conceal the German connection in 1917.
Royalty needs to be challenged these days for a deeper and more urgent reason that the ‘symbolic affront’ it has always represented. These days it is also being mobilised by the far Right as a prime Culture War tool, as I seek to explain here: https://calumlaw.wordpress.com/2022/06/02/even-if-its-foot-soldier-is-nowadays-the-lone-wolf-the-ultimate-currency-of-royalist-orthodoxy-is-violence/
Hardly a commoner as I noted from tonight’s news that despite being stripped of all his titles he remains 8th in line to the throne
That fact still proves the farce of all this. They can’t even ostracise him properly. That, and him being gfted the Duke of Edinburgh’s old house when he and Brenda gave up the pretence of living together.
The whole nonsense emanates from the Divine Right of Kings higher power can be proved to exist.