At the age of 65, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lost it all - every royal title, and every symbol of inherited privilege. Two weeks ago, we were told that this was impossible. But it's happened, and the myth that some are born superior has fallen apart.
This video explores what that means for Britain. Because when a prince can become a commoner, the hierarchy that defines our whole society begins to crumble. The monarchy's claim to natural privilege has always been the cultural face of economic inequality and the idea that wealth, status, and deference are deserved.
Now, that illusion is gone. What happens when the royal mystique collapses? What does that mean for justice, equality, and a new politics of care?
And watch to the end for a discussion of philosopher John Rawls' “difference principle” — and why true justice begins when we stop pretending anyone is born superior.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
At the age of 65, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has just become a commoner. He's been stripped of all his royal titles. The person formerly known as Prince Andrew is no longer a Prince, an earl, a lord, a Knight of the Garter, a member of the Royal Victorian Order, whatever that is, and anything else that proved that he was once royal. It's all gone.
But two weeks ago, we were told that this was impossible. We were told that 'Prince' was his title as a consequence of birthright. But even that claim has now fallen apart. Public consent has stripped Andrew of his titles, and with that stripping of his roles away from this person who has been discredited in the public eye, the royal myth has died, and that matters.
It matters because the monarchy has always claimed that its privilege is natural. By implication, they say that some people, like them, are born superior and others like us must defer. But when a Prince loses all his titles and becomes a commoner, that illusion collapses. Privilege, it turns out, is just made up. And it always has been - that's my point. It's always been an artificial construct designed to extract value from the rest of us.
This is about political economy after all, and in that context, the monarchy is just the tip of the iceberg. Britain's hierarchy runs on deference and not competence. We are required in this country to accept that inequality is inbuilt into our system of governance. The honour system, titles and orders of Empire, all feed into this game. They all make unearned power look respectable, and they encourage everyone else to stay in their place.
Now, though, if a Prince can be stripped of his privileges, anyone can. What we now know is that titles, wealth, and status are not permanent. They do depend on public consent. There is a relationship of power, and the public holds some of that power. The people who are now claiming superiority can, in fact, lose it overnight. Without our consent, they cannot be superior. This changes everything about how power is understood in this country.
The Royal family's USP - its reason for being - was the sale of mystique, to appear untouchable, but that mystique has died. It did when it was used as a shield for wrongdoing. And for a decade, the royal family have let Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten, or whatever he is now called, hide behind titles, to pretend that he was somehow different when he was accused of wrongdoing, and serious wrongdoing at that.
Now, the shield has been stripped away. The royals have been revealed as ordinary people with ordinary names that begin with the title, Mr., Mrs, Miss, Ms, or whatever. Monarchy now looks less like heritage and very much more like a hierarchy of power.
The significance is that the monarchy reflects that wider structure of British privilege. That privilege has always said, " Wealth deserves protection, and power means immunity."
It's always said that, "Inequality is natural and deference is duty."
But if even royalty can fall, none of these assumptions holds true. The hierarchy of power at this moment looks decidedly vulnerable. And the challenge now is to decide whether that claim of superiority made by the royals is one that can still be supported elsewhere.
They've used it to justify rent extraction, to provide them with inherited privilege, to allow unaccountability, and a right to rule, and, of course, low taxation for the wealthy. The monarchy has been the cultural face of that oppressive system, and others have also gained, of course. And now, as the monarchy's legitimacy fails, the economic myths of power are crumbling too. If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is just a commoner, so is everyone else. And that means no more excuses for wealth without responsibility, power without accountability and injustice defended by tradition. Commoners, after all, deserve justice too.
The political meaning is clear. The eugenics myth is shattered. It's not true. We are all in the same boat. There is no difference between us. And power no longer means immunity. And wealth should not buy a lighter tax bill. Prejudice is not justified by custom. Strip away the titles, and equality becomes visible. And in that case, there's space for new thinking. When myths die, truth can grow.
And what I would suggest is that what the philosopher John Rawls has to say here really matters. He argued that true justice begins behind a veil of ignorance because we must imagine what a just system looks like without knowing what our position is within the social order. And from that perspective, he argued, and I think rightly, that rational people would always design systems that protect the least advantaged first, because you never know whether you might be one of those least advantaged people.
Rawls called this the difference principle. Inequality is only justifiable if it benefits those with the least. But of course, the monarchy has always represented the opposite idea. The idea that privilege is justified by birth. Its collapse invites us to create a new moral foundation for our society to show that we care before we worry about hierarchy, and that we put need before entitlement and equality before deference.
This is the basis for a new politics of care. We now see that nothing is immutable, not even royal birthright. In just two weeks, Andrew went from being a Prince by birth with nobody being able to touch his entitlement to the title, to being plain, Mr. If a Prince could lose his privilege because he's lost the game of power with us, the people, so can the powerful elsewhere.
The veil of deference is lifting. The day of the commoner has come and that knowledge matters. We can now build justice, after all, it's time to do it.
But do you think we could do that? Do you think that the fall of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is significant? Do you think that this heralds the end of royalty? Do you think that this changes the priorities within society? Do you think that we can build a politics of care?
Let us know. There's a poll down below.
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!
Interesting, as I believe Charles stripped Andrew of his royal status as a desperate effort to save the monarchy both for himself and for William. They are distancing themselves from Andrew and everything he is associated with, but in doing so have also destroyed the mystique of royal status, probably unaware of what they have done.
These last 10 years have shown the inadequacy of our British constitution, both in parliament and with the idea our constitutional monarchy provides checks and balance on power. During Brexit and Covid it failed to do this. I believe the Queen should have refused to parogue parliament and there should have been ways to stop Boris. At present many are looking to Nigel Farage as their saviour.
I think where royal family fail to read the room is in their lavish lifestyle partly at the expense of the public purse, and through their fuedal estates (I live surrounded by Duchy land). In a time of prolonged austerity particularly affecting younger adults, the need for a family who through accident of birth have wealth and privilege is being increasingly questioned. Andrew has abused this, but are the rest complicit in not stopping him? It’s likely as a commoner the law would have caught up with him much earlier. His situation now becomes increasingly messy and he has never made good decisions.
Much to agree with
It might not seem the right time to say this, given the current dominant news story, but the notion of “royal family” involves us all in the creation of a supernatural fantasy that we expect a family to live in for all their lives. They may have unimaginable wealth, but the life-long expectation of faultless public service, endless performance and constant critical scrutiny, all arising from an accident of birth, really amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. We shouldn’t be doing it. We can do better than that. It’s time for a change.
I agree, despite their undoubted wealth it is clear that the royals are a dysfunctional family and that living so much in the public eye does not help with that. I would go as far as to say it would be a kindness to them and their descendants to remove the burden, along with the wealth.
In devil’s-advocate mode I can imagine sundry apologists for capitalism arguing against Rawls that the good society maximises social mobility, so your starting position in it doesn’t matter, and dynamic individuals win wealth and privilege; ie. not a more caring or equal society, but a more fiercely competitive meritocratic one.
(Where this argument falls down, of course, is that meritocracy itself collapses once wealth and privilege are entrenched – as indeed do the shibboleths of liberal democracy – equality before the law, equality of opportunity – if you can buy the best lawyers, or the best education, or influence. Not to mention Wilkinson & Pickett’s empirical conclusion, in their book The Spirit Level, that more equal societies make everybody happier – even the rich.)
It is good that this has happened, but still, he is by all accounts, going to be given a free mansion to live in, and will still have servants and people looking after him. Although he might not head to a Pizza Express again (although apparently according to the Daily Express there is one just 8 miles from Sandringham), there are plenty of exclusive clubs and restaurants who will accept his patronage and shield him from other commoners.
Virginia Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law are still after him though. They want him to talk to the FBI, but also potentially a prosecution.
Mr A. M. Windsor might still have a way to go.
Meanwhile look at the deference showed by the media – it is all in terms of a bad egg does not invalidate the whole Royal scam. Remembrance Day is approaching when the Royals are explicitly out and about and the media push the King and Country line.
I know that Pizza Express. He’s stand out like a very sore thumb.
The question for me is, will the corrupt politicians and genocide enablers in the UK now face police investigations and the Courts for misconduct in public office, at least.
They’re funded and controlled by individuals and foreign powers.
If a prince can be punished even in such a minor way (he’s still protected and won’t be on the streets raiding bins for food) why should our unsavoury politicians escape justice.
My concern is that this will be treated as a one-off, an aberration, and the political class will carry on as usual accepting bribes for goodness knows what return benefits.
I think we should grasp the nettle of what is to happen to the Monarchy on the death of the current King. We missed the opportunity when the last Queen died. I would suggest a large survey of opinion conducted through citizens’ assemblies which asks whether the Monarchy should survive and what its functions should be, and what possible replacement there could be. I think it is crucial that whatever reform or new system is carried out it has wide popular acceptance. There could perhaps be a confirmatory referendum, but I am wary of that, after the divisive and toxic effects of the carelessly conceived Brexit Referendum. I have thought for a long time that we need major constitutional change, including the abolition of the HOL and possible federation, and that reform/abolition of the Monarchy would be best done in that process, but it may be that this latest scandal means that something has to be done about the Monarchy separately and sooner.
It always amused me a few years ago that young people would say ‘Well, the Queen’s OK, but we don’t want Charles’. Thus demonstrating that they had failed to grasp the first principle of a monarchy – the King is dead, long live the King. I don’t blame them for this, the Queen had been there forever, and they obviously had no experience of a changeover. If Charles is to be the last we need to start yesterday, there will be no opportunity when he goes.
Agreed.
I am a member of Republic.
“Quick children, all of you, clap your hands, all over the world, to show you believe in fairies, or Tinkerbell will die!”
It looks like the children are losing interest.
There’s a simple truth here, had Andrew been the first born he would now be king. I can’t help wondering how the establishment would have dealt with that.
Abdication would have been required.
I suspect he would have been restrained at a much earlier stage, and many things that DID happen would have not happened.
Having said that, we did let a former PoW get very thick with Hitler, then let him become King, so maybe…
I thought yesterday that your video on this subject was excellent, but you have surpassed yourself today. As an aside, I see that in the U.S.A, events here have caused quite a stushie in relation to Andrew’s involvement with Epstein. The ripple effect could be quite remarkable if more information becomes known, especially in relation to Trump.
I doubt this story is over as yet.
What your post screams to me is something a little more fundamental. Never mind the Windsors, it says something about us – society – and it is an indictment.
What I can see here is an element of our CONSENT to be ruled by those who make themselves out to be superior.
That is what I see. And I have to ask, why is that?
Well, it’s not about any issues with being ‘superior. We – the British public – seem to accept that. No, Andrew is in his situation because of sex – sex with a young woman, the act itself enabled by what seems to be some sort of sex trafficking ring set up by a very rich man and an heiress. I’m pleased and relieved that society seems to think that that is wrong.
But I am still troubled by the fact that we tolerate – we consent – to be ruled by inequality. The Epstein issue does not address that at all.
Our – society’s – complicity and the Windsors obduracy will ensure I’m afraid that any ideas that this could be the end of the monarchy in this country may be wide of the mark.
Thatcher’s legacy – the pursuit and worship of wealth has been rather successful mind-fuck for the British public. This has helped to boost those already rich and made them richer – the Windsors included.
The question is how can such a public abhor inequality whilst at the same see being rich as an aspiration?
What I’m saying is that the Windsors are our problem; we are just as culpable with our genuflection based on seeing wealth as superior – whether it is the royal family or seeing some over paid chief executives pontificating about how to run the country.
This remains for me a weakness in our society that is going to be exploited ruthlessly.
There is also the issue of whether inherited status as in the monarchy, is fair to the family on whom the burden is placed. I know that now is perhaps not the time to think of such things, in terms of abuser Andrew, but remember little Harry and William being paraded through London behind Mummy’s coffin while a global audience gawked at them?
Not many of them seem to live very happy lives, and escaping isnt that easy, and for direct heirs very difficult indeed. Imagine what would have been said to Charles Windsor if he’d said after Diana’s death, “No, let Andrew do it, I’m doing a David, with my Mrs Wallis and my vegetables.”
It’s simply morally inexcusable, and that’s been clear since Samuel warned the Israelites what a BAD idea monarchy was, predicting all the things that happened later under Solomon (gold palaces, conscription into a standing army, taxation for wars and palaces, and dodgy dynastic marriages). So of course, the people said, “Great, let’s have a king, everyone else has one!”. And the rest is – just what Samuel said it would be, after all, he was a prophet…
Bad for the monarch, bad for the people, bad for the country, bad for Victoria Guiffre, bad for little children, bad for women who marry in.
I have argued about the injustice of this for some time.
While its easy to kick a man while he’s down, and given his experience I can see where Harvey Proctor is coming from, apart from that nobody has a good word to say about him.
This is from Twitter from a retired Police Officer
https://x.com/ExInspectorBDS/status/1984301939891355898
When Andrew was in Manchester his driver was taken ill. This is back in the 90s.
GMP asked for two police drivers to volunteer to take him back to London, each to be paid a small fortune in double time to do so.
Nobody volunteered. Because he was so (Expletive removed by me) obnoxious.
Agree with PSR and Chomsky ‘manufacturing consent’. Richard makes a very powerful case, but I can’t see the monarchy crumbling anymore that it did after the abdication in 1936 – the most that we will get is a further move towards a slimmed-down, bicycling monarchy like Denmark etc.
Our ‘democracy’ is corrupt from top to bottom – the main parties and politicians bought and sold by dark money lobbyists, Oil, gas ,big builders, US healthcare etc. You couldn’t make it up that Wes Streeting the health Secretary is actually funded by US healthcare interests, and that he is never questioned about that. That shows the BBC and other media are ‘complicit’ with this kind of corruption – or ‘conflict of interest’ as it is more politely put.
We need a Commission on the Constitution COPT to clean up the whole system – get rid of the money, the bribery for honours, the 2nd ‘jobs’, the HoL . Such a commission should also look at the monarchy. , the head of state , the Dukedoms the Lord Lieutenants – the prerogative powers of the monarch, and the whole feudal remnant, which is a sort of shadow governing system interwoven with the military. Some of it became visible during the last transition from the Queen to Charles.
The chances of ever getting such a Commission and reforms to our democracy the Monarchy seem very remote.
Polls show people are turned off politics -‘they are in it for themselves’ -even more than they are turned off the monarchy.
Desperate times.
Much to agree with
Hazel speaks of the “British Constitution”, but what passes for a constitution is no more than a mish-mash of conventions, political opinions down the years and arcane regulations (not statute law) such as procedural rules at Westminster. It’s yet another classic example of British “muddling through”: a lazy approach with nothing defined clearly, thus enabling exploitation by those in the know.
It’s also used to keep the devolved nations in their place (a tactic long spotted by the devolved nations), hence their determination to create their own constitutions if/when independence happens.
‘Much to agree with” but the UK constitution also gives the possibility of easier change. From life Peers in the 1950s to devolution to getting rid of Boris and Liz. I have an American friend who is expert in the US Constitution and he bemoans the almost impossibility of meaningful change. A few years ago the Senate divided 50:50 but the Republicans represented 40 million fewer people. And it only needs 13 states to block an amendment and that those states would only represent about a sixth of the population. Then there is the electoral college!
Having said that I think there are areas of ours which needed a clearer structure. I advocate PR voting, abolishing the Lords and electing Senators by region (with a nominated element ) more devolution, funding parties in a different way and reforming the press who as Stanley Baldwin said over 90 years ago
The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense, They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. (owners of the Express and Mail )What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker’s meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context…What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”
Thanks
The Royal family are the ultimate symbol of British nationalism. For royalty to be over there has to be a revolutionary change in ‘our’ national identity which may be nothing more than coming to our collective senses. But that will be painful for many who identity with a false British exceptionalism that serves the elite who’s power requires consent freely given. This makes me think that the years immediately after WW2 where truly revolutionary times.
Nationalism dissuades people from thinking objectively and morally, in exchange for some false idealism.
It’s all about money, sex, and power, chiefly money which opens the door to the other two. We now have many politicians who are there for the money they can make by courting the wealthy. The rich can buy these people’s support and they do it openly. Honest politicians are attacked and smeared by a media also bought by the wealthy.
We have a government now in many countries which is ‘of the money, by the money, for the money and not, as it should be ‘the people’.
Perhaps, it always was, is now, and always will be; the ‘way of the world’ as is often said.
It can be challenged and changed to a limited extent, which is what this blog tries to do. If we can persuade wealth to be less greedy and realise their best interests are served by a society free from harsh poverty and unfairness. The rich can keep enough for a happy life without fearing that the rest want them brought down.
Royalty can also carry on their traditional role, remaining relatively wealthy, but on a much reduced scale and with less deference from ‘commoners’ and a lot less property and money from the Civil List. I’m sure they would accept that if they thought the public were turning against them.
Tony Benn: “I don’t think people realise how the establishment became established. It simply stole the land and property off the poor, surrounded themselves with weak minded Sycophants for protection, gave themselves titles and have been wielding power ever since.”
Correct.
Aha, this was the video I was watching! Sorry, I didn’t actually read the blog post I was commenting on. My concern still stands!
Amid all the noise about Andrew, it’s easy to forget that much of the recent history of the Royal Family’s males involves impropriety. The Battenburgs had a shocking history of sexual misbehaviour, most of it hushed up by the UK media. The current king had a close relationship with Jimmy Saville, which never gets mentioned nowadays. He doesn’t get many brownie points for the whole Diana episode and his pursuit of his current Queen Parker Bowles either.
It’s quite fitting that the vote for independence in Scotland goes up by 10% if it involves becoming a republic.
“Myths leave by the front door and come back in through the window”.
My paternal grandmother.
Everything you say is right in my view but I’m sceptical about what will follow.
With all the background noise in this country is it even possible to have a sensible national conversation about royalty (or anything else for that matter)?