The reported arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office is not just another royal scandal. It is a constitutional moment. It forces us to confront a question that Britain has avoided for decades: can an unelected institution, funded by public money, continue to rely on secrecy in a democracy that demands accountability?
For most of its modern history, the Royal Family has survived by saying little. Its maxim of "don't complain, don't explain" was once politically effective. It allowed the monarchy to remain distant from controversy and above party politics. It worked when Britain was deferential, when inequality was accepted as natural, and when the media cooperated in preserving myth.
That world has gone.
We now live in a country where people are angry. They are angry about housing they cannot afford, social security they fear losing, wages that stagnate, public services that fail, and a tax system that too often favours wealth over work. These are themes I address repeatedly on Funding the Future. They are the economic roots of the political anger that is pushing some towards the far-right and others towards despair.
In that context, the spectacle of a publicly funded institution remaining insulated from scrutiny is no longer tolerable. Silence no longer looks dignified. It looks like evasion or responsibility and accountability.
This matters because the monarchy is not just a family. It is part of the state. Royal duties are public duties. Royal finances are public finances. Royal influence is political influence, whether acknowledged or not. If a member of that institution is accused of misconduct in public office, the issue is not entirely a private matter, because the office they held was a part of the royal family. No suggestion is made here about culpability. That would be inappropriate. But there are questions of public accountability, and the royal family cannot avoid those now.
The first obvious point to make is that the law must apply equally. That is the bedrock of democracy. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, it must be tested openly and fairly. If there is none, that must be made clear. But the institution cannot retreat into ambiguity and expect trust to remain intact. And that challenges the King most of all. It is suggested that he is above the law and cannot be prosecuted, as prosecutions are brought in his name. The law is not, then, in fact, applied equally. That is why the monarchy has to be radically reformed, or go if it refuses to change as required. Unless it is utterly reformed, losing all its power, inequality will still be symbolised by this fact of the monarch being above the law.
That is the issue that cannot be avoided now. Trust is fragile in Britain today. Decades of neoliberal policy, which I call the politics of destruction, have left communities hollowed out. They have concentrated wealth, weakened labour, and stripped resilience from our public realm. When people see privilege protected while their own lives become precarious, they conclude that the system is rigged.
That perception is what is politically explosive in our country at present. It feeds resentment, conspiracy, and the appeal of authoritarian answers. It is one reason why the politics of hate finds an audience.
At the very least, if the monarchy wishes to survive, the condition must be that it is seen to stand for something different. It must embody the politics of care, including fairness, honesty, responsibility, and service. That also means it subjects itself to rigorous transparency.
The Royal Household should be accountable. Parliament should hold the monarchy and its finances to account. The legal status of royal roles should be clarified. Tax arrangements should be open. Security costs should be debated. In short, the monarchy must accept the scrutiny that every publicly funded institution faces.
None of this is revolutionary. It is a normal democratic practice.
The alternative is drift with the monarchy relying on silence as scandal follows scandal and each episode erodes legitimacy a little more until support ebbs, and one day the institution finds it has lost the consent on which it depends.
I have never been a supporter of a monarchy. I have always believed that inherited privilege sits uneasily and incompatibly with democratic values. But the issue now is not ideology. It is institutional credibility. Britain must decide what kind of state it wants. Is it one where tradition excuses opacity, or one where accountability applies to all?
There are only three realistic futures for the monarchy. It can radically reform and survive as a transparent and entirely ceremonial institution. Alternatively, it can drift and decline as trust evaporates until the whole edifice is swept away. Or it is constitutionally replaced by an elected head of state.
I am aware that at present the choice will not lie with republicans like me. Right now, it does, in fact, lie with the Royal Family itself. If it clings to secrecy, it will undermine its own position. If it embraces openness, a loss of its power, and a purely symbolic role, it might yet justify its continuing ceremonial, but not constitutional, existence in a modern democracy.
What is clear, though, is that the maxim don't complain, don't explain belonged to another century. In a politics of care, institutions explain because they respect the people they serve. Continued royal silence is, then, no longer dignity. It would be denial, and denial is not a foundation on which any constitutional order can stand.
The conclusion is clear. The monarchy is either radically reformed and lose all of its supposed constitutional power, or it must be gone. Those are the only cards left on the table.
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]If a member of that institution is accused of misconduct in public office, the issue is not entirely a private matter, because the office they held was a part of the royal family.[/i]
Up to a point. AMW has got away with his behaviour as long as he has because he’s a royal. He’s been arrested because he took on an additional role. That was the public office and he continued to behave as though he was above the law.
Starmer yesterday said no-one is above the law. Certainly it’s closing in on the Mountbatten-Windsors, as I shall in future call the family, but I think we’re still a long way from applying the full sanction of the law to the family as a whole.
Charles has ‘’inherited” an illegal waste site. Is he going to be allowed to dump it on the local authority to avoid paying for the clean-up?
Somehow I think he might.
You could feel sorry for Charles because he inherited this mess created by the late queen, who for some bizarre reason favoured Andrew over her other children and did everything to protect him. In some ways he has done the right thing too late, but the coldness of his statement and the fact Andrew was arrested on his 66th birthday is not a nice look.
The problem is the royals are hopelessly out of touch with how the rest of us live, and William’s work on homelessness looks ridiculous to me when he could use his wealth and numerous homes and estates to solve the problem. William did at least go to a normal university and marry a commoner, but still comes across as being hopelessly out of touch and willing to do anything to preserve his accession.
What the royals need now is really good advisors and PR, but despite all their money they appear to have neither. The country wants change, and not just electorally. Yesterday even those previously very sympathetic to the royals were in favour of justice being done. Public opinion can no longer support the exploitation of young girls or the handing over of trade secrets. But surely today should be Peter Mandleson’s turn?
William did not marry a commoner in the true sense of the concept. He attended an elite university and married a person from an elite background. As far as I know neither struggled with student debt, housing and day to day living costs to attend in the way someone from an ordinary background does.
Elites and aristocracy, there is no difference really when you look at the behaviours. The aspirational prince and princess fantasies that generations have been raised on all have some sort of elite being the fantasy winner to aspire to become, one way or another. And always to the cost the bulk of ordinary folk ultimately.
My opinion anyway.
William did not marry a commoner in the true sense of the concept.
He attended an elite university and married a person from an elite background. As far as I know neither struggled with student debt, housing and day to day living costs to attend in the way someone from an ordinary background does.
Elites and aristocracy, there is no difference really when you look at the behaviours. The aspirational prince and princess fantasies that generations have been raised on all have some sort of elite being the fantasy winner to aspire to become, one way or another. And always to the cost the bulk of ordinary folk ultimately.
Whatever happens to the monarchy, it’s heritable constitutional role is a absurdity now more than ever.
My opinion anyway.
Your opinion is welcomed here.
That’s all very well, but as you elude somewhere else – what comes next if they go?
Well, just look at America and look at their equivalent royal families. That’s what comes next – the mega mega rich. We might have James Dyson (I think he has bought up a lot of Lincolnshire hasn’t he?) at the top of it all one day or Jim Radcliffe.
I expect some tit bits will be tossed from the table to make things look more respectable but remember that in all this – including my post about Andrew today and yesterday, what I am constantly aware of is the influence of pleonexia.
That is to say that these people are made mentally ill – de-humanised – by the amount of money they have.
‘The rich are different to you and me’ said Fitzgerald. Indeed.
Tax please. Lots of it.
I agree with what PSR has said. Getting rid of the monarchy is but a first step. Taxation with a view to leveling a second.
There is a third & equally important point. There has been a fair bit of e-mail traffic yesterday (& today) about the UK’s body politsic and its members.
Some/many politicians have always been corrupt (in various ways). Political enforcers (whips) keep little books about how they err and use this as leverage on MPs.
The current revelations suggest that the situation has become an order of magnitude worse, at all political levels than, for example, tory-sleaze in the 1990s (& 2020s).
Part of the problem ref LINO was indentified by new LINO members in 2016 @ peak-Corbyn. Consitutency LINO parties, stuffed with old lags resentful of incomers.
Not much changed and the LINO right-whinge used this reality (& new-member exodus) to go back to the status-quo-ante, of mostly passive CLPs, cowed by the LINo executive to the point where even complaining about the bahaviour of a LINO member is enough to get you deslected even as a councillor.
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/02/17/labour-councillors-axed-for-raising-paedophilia-concerns/
LINO is in the news cos it is in power. The tories less so. That said, I am confident they are just as bad. PR is not enough. There needs to be a different approach towards how political parties are structured, funded and the spread of power within such parties.
LINO delenda est.
Parliament is sovereign. They need to start acting like it. They must lead on delivering the reforms required. Getting this to happen is at least as important, and probably more so, than the urgent reforms needed for the monarchy. And Parliament must reform itself too. Our entire system of governance simply isn’t working. It isn’t improving the lives of the people any more.
And there is no need to wait for the outcomes of any court case(s) involving Andrew. That seems to be the latest excuse for procrastination. It’s nonsense.
I would suggest this is the time for Rexit. Time to leave this institution where it belongs, in history books. Give them somewhere decent to live, with the time and sufficient funds to find alternative ways of living. I think they themselves would end up a lot happier and healthier. Just got to hope AMW is not the sacrificial lamb proffered so that normal business can be resumed. A good time to invest in popcorn?
Rexit
I like it
I just used it on Twitter
Be careful what you wish for. I’m ambivalent about the monarchy, I suppose, although I did swear an oath of allegiance to “Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors” many years ago. I can think of one “successor” I’d go out of my way to kick in the knackers, mind you.
Andrew is not the sum total of the monarchy. The King has had to balance his duties as monarch, I guess, with the fact that Andrew is his brother. Nevertheless, I should point out that stripping Andrew of his titles and evicting him from his home – no t to mention saying that the police will have the full support of the Royal family in any investigations – is unprecedented. Not that I’m coming down on one side or the other; just pointing it out.
It’s obviously a completely outdated institution; but it’s the result of millennia of history, and unlikely to change overnight. I’m all for redistribution and the politics of care, but I now have a deep distrust of any institution which could be politically (financially) bought. The monarchy is possessed of huge wealth. Does it, however, seek to use that wealth to influence political direction? Does it use that wealth to finance opaque think tanks? I do think the monarchy’s finances should be transparent, but you could argue that whilst financial influence on Governments is hidden, why should the monarchy reveal their finances? (Devil’s Advocate comment)
I don’t believe the monarchy uses its wealth to buy influence which distorts the direction of the country. And frankly, until anyone can come up with a decent alternative which ensures that we don’t end up with Boris Johnson as President, I’m content to leave it alone for the time being. It’s hardly top of the list of my priorities.
We’ll have to disagree about this.
We can’t eliminate inherited privilege withjout addressing it.