I am aware that the media is currently saying a great deal about Peter Mandelson in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, but I am very worried that this might just be a very useful mechanism for distracting attention from the much deeper crisis in the UK's power structures that this scandal represents. In that context, let me highlight the current roles of two people whose entitlement to participate in the UK's power structures must be open to question.
I'm referring to the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. They are, of course, the daughters of Andrew Mount Batton-Windsor, who was formerly known as Prince Andrew and the Duke of York.
I confess I have remarkably little interest in which of these sisters is which. I'm not even sure which is the elder. I do know, however, that one of them is now considered so important, given the absence of their father and Prince Harry from the Royal “firm”, that they are included in the group authorised to give Royal assent in this country in the absence of the King being able to do so.
My opinion is quite straightforward. I think that this is absolutely unacceptable.
Let me leave aside, for the sake of argument, the fact that I object to royalty as a whole. The whole eugenic foundation of this edifice is profoundly unacceptable to me. But do let me then presume that the eugenic assumptions on which royalty is based hold true, and that by some miracle, royalty does confer exceptional genes on some members of a particular family, giving them an ability to participate in government in a manner not granted to anyone else.
Accepting, for the sake of this argument, that this is the case, what very obviously follows is that it must be agreed that this genetic line of inheritance clearly failed in the case of the person now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. If the Royal family has itself excluded him from authority and stripped him of his titles, then they must have identified the fault line in their own eugenic theory in his particular case.
But surely something else logically follows from that? If this genetic line has now proved unsuitable, so too, surely, must the line descended from him be equally flawed, because it is by descent that these people get their power?
If so, and ignoring any references to the princesses in question included in the Epstein papers (and they are there), then the time has come to recognise that they, like their father, should be stripped of their royal privileges. Based solely on the eugenic logic of royal power, they must be unqualified for the roles and titles they hold and should, therefore, be excluded from the country's power hierarchies.
I admit I could reach this conclusion by simply referring to the royal family as a whole, but I know others would not agree. I have therefore carefully constructed this argument on the basis of the assumptions that those who support the monarchy themselves favour. How, in that case, can they object to what I am saying?
I stress, this has nothing to do with the two people I refer to. The argument is logical. Either you believe in the unflawed genetic inheritance of the royal family and its consequent right to participate in government, or you don't. You really cannot have it both ways.
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!
This is a query that should rightfully be answered and looks ripe to be swept underneath the carpet if it is not.
What’s fair for Chomsky, Clinton and many others is fair for Andy’s kids in my opinion.
The King can only fiddle around at the margins, as he has done with his brother, who remains in the line of succession. Only Parliament can get a grip of this stuff. There’s much they can do to trim the extent and reach of the Royal Family. But look at the state of Parliament!! We’re in a wide scale constitutional, as well as global crisis, and no-one is in charge!!!
Interesting that Princess Anne chose that her children would NOT have titles
Clearly she thought that they were better out than in
Royalty is there to justify unaccountable power and wealth that has been taken, to make it look like it is a given.
Andrew and Harry may be excluded from the Royal “firm” as you say, but they are still listed as Counsellors of State. Wikipedia says “In practice, only members of the royal family that perform public duties on behalf of the monarch would be appointed as counsellors of state, thus eliminating the possibility of Harry, Andrew or Beatrice serving in this role.” Which does beg the question, why are they even on the list?
I accept your “eugenic logic of royal power” argument, but sadly in this country logic has nothing to do with the power (and mystique) of royalty. I read the other day that in Norway, which is having royal troubles of its own, parliament has a debate every four years on whether the monarchy should continue. That’s something we could usefully introduce here, I think.
Agreed!
Your argument about the “contaminated blood line” breaking the “pure perfect royal” line is sound … And quite funny at the same time.
I read an article earlier this morning (not typically a royal follower!) … As well as puff pieces on how “the girls” were dragged into this by their parents …. It turns out these girls were adults who choose to lunch with Epstein days after his prison release, who’ve used their royal connections to set up their business affairs (with dodgy Saudi links.. like dad). One even has a charity to stop people trafficking!
Every part of their activity screams dodgy. And our institutions support it. This international web of power is wide and deeply embedded. Why should any of it be tolerated?
Thanks
“Every part of their activity screams dodgy”
I totally agree with this statement but I must say that I find it VERY dodgy and unacceptable that CKIII accepted bags of cash for his charities from some very dodgy people who are probably more dodgy than Beatrice (eldest daughter) and Eugenie (youngest daughter).
Based on Richard’s “definition” of Royalty, Princess Anne seems to be the only one who would be left standing.
Maybe.