I have already asked this morning whether Keir Starmer's career is over as a consequence of the Epstein scandal. So let me ask another question that appears to require an answer, which is, can the monarchy survive the Epstein scandal?
We learned more about the behaviour of the royal family yesterday:
- Andrew Montbatten-Windsor (AMW) was bundled out of Windsor during the night and sent into exile in Sandringham after:
- More revelations about his behaviour with young women.
- His defiant ride through Great Park in Windsor on Tuesday.
- The King revealed his own lack of judgment in letting AMW stay in Windsor before this move was forced on him. He should have been moved out many months, if not years, ago.
- He shows the same lack of judgment now by letting AMW move to Sandringham under royal protection with an income provided by the royal family.
- The revelations about AMW can only get worse. There will be more to come. The damage to the royal family can only get worse.
And let me note:
- There has been no apparent investigation of AMW's behaviour by the King or his staff, of which we have been made aware, or the findings of which have been made public, indicating either:
- A curious lack of curiosity on his part.
- A desire to cover matters up.
- A wish to hide the late Queen's involvement in all this, given that she provided the £12 million settlement AMW paid with regard to this matter.
- A desire to maintain the pretence that there is a perfect "royal family", which we can very clearly see is utter nonsense.
- All of this suggests that the King is revealing incompetence on this issue to a degree that matches that of Keir Starmer's.
- Charles has no viable successor. The monarchy is an institution, the eugenic foundation of which is repugnant and which can only have contributed to the attitude of AWM (and maybe others within it) that there are "disposable people" who were available to be exploited.
I think the Labour Party is over. It has been revealed to be rotten to the core. I think the same of the monarchy too.
The royal family includes rotten people. That is now clear to absolutely anyone. There is nothing special about them. There is nothing that should now give the Mountbatten Windsors a supposedly God-given, legally endowed, or customary right to act as head of state of this country or of some others within the Commonwealth of Nations. They're just a bunch of ultra-privileged people who have exploited their position and other people for personal gain and gratification. That's been rumbled now. It's time for them to go.
How long will that take? Longer than it will take for Starmer to go, but watch this space.
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!
There are two comments I can make that apply equally to Starmer
Firstly be careful what you wish for as you might get it
Secondly the real challenge is what you replace Starmer, The Monarchy etc with
We can clearly see the demise of The Monarchy and Starmer looming over the horizon, but what then?
If we were to say that the Monarchy was to end with the death of King Charles we will then have an opportunity to decide what replaces it but instead we could end up with a train wreck and a ‘solution’ pulled out of a hat which may be no better and possibly worse than what replaces it.
Similarly with Starmer, I dont have the knowledge to judge his potential replacements – Come Back Corbyn anyone? Andy Burnham cant stand who sounds like the ‘least worse’ candidate
As one commentator says ‘Brace Brace’
You miss the key question: what state are we even talking about?
We are in for a period of massive disruption
Bring it on, I say. Resolving the resultant mess must involve widespread deliberative consultation of the inhabitants of the country/countries. Let’s go for some hard core democracy instead of the authoritarian alternative that sadly feels more likely.
Richard’s statement “You miss the key question: what state are we even talking about?” is very pertinent. In case England is unaware of developments in Scotland (and I know that Richard and a number of regular contributors here are aware), a recent poll here showed a narrow margin for Independence. However when Independence was coupled with Scotland becoming a republic, that margin was boosted by a further 10%, thereby raising it comfortably to a level which Westminster cannot ignore or dismiss.
UK MSM seems to have totally ignored that poll and its implications (and indeed I don’t recall BBC Scotland mentioning it either; but no surprise there then). However, if a collapse of the Labour Party results in a UK General Election, you can expect a strong push for Scotland’s secession from the UK.
Thanks Ken.
The SNP should really take note.
They don’t though.
It would seem you are arguing to maintain the status quo. I too used to accept the argument that if we got rid of the monarchy what would replace it. I had an epiphany when Johnstone prorogued parliament and the monarch knowing it was unconstitutional accepted it. It then took the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. Had the monarch sacked the PM and forced a constitutional crises I would have had a deal more respect for maintaining the status quo. As for Starmer his jaket is indeed on a shoogly peg.
There is still time for an MP to resign and the Labour party allow Burnham to stand, but if he did stand would that not put his judgment at risk?
Parliament holds the decisive levers over the monarchy, whose authority rests on statute and convention, not independent power. To bring the institution into a morally acceptable position, MPs could act. They could codify the monarch’s role so that royal assent and other residual powers become purely automatic and ceremonial. Transparency laws could require full disclosure of royal finances, estates and lobbying, treating the Crown like any publicly funded body. The prerogative and the archaic requirement for royal consent to certain bills could be abolished. The succession rules I’ve mentioned previously, along with titles and honours are all matters Parliament has altered before and could revise again to reflect ethical standards. Ultimately, funding arrangements could be reshaped or, if public consent existed, legislation could replace the monarchy altogether. The point is simple: democratic authority already lies with Parliament. It only needs the will to use it. Trouble is, the entire fabric of the UK is crumbling before us and Parliament has lost the plot.
We need a republic.
Let’s stop pretending otherwise.
Support for a republic is growing, but we’re not there yet. There’s still a fairly sizeable majority in favour of the monarchy, though that’s much less the case amongst the young. So there is hope. In the meantime, some of the changes I’ve mentioned would improve things and help pave the way to a smooth transition. The awfulness of the Andrew saga gives Parliament the opportunity, if only some of the more enlightened MPs (and there are some) would speak up and try to make the case.
As much as I agree with the post and find the the whole royal enterprise totally distasteful, there are some really simple factors here at work too. Many of those propping up this system, servicing it etc., could well lose their jobs and income if it was wound up. So there will be a lot of self protectionism going on as a result. What we are seeing is that good old English feudal system in all its ‘glory’.
They will outlast the politicians but hopefully they are holed below the waterline now. They have allowed themselves to be subsumed into the unprincipled legal thievery of noveau riche of the Reagan and Thatcherite eras and they must pay the price – I hope.
There must be some Personal Protection Officers with interesting stories to tell. Judge-led Inquiry needed to get them to talk?
Yes
No
If the monarchy was formally ended, they would just be another massively wealthy family living a life of privilege but under less public scrutiny than now. They wouldn’t surely be poor, as there are significant estates that ate owned for the family in some manner or another. One might argue for seizing those estates, but on that why single out one family of immense privilege rather than just targeting immense wealth in general?
Their duties and powers are largely ceremonial now, so a key question would be would it make things better. It wouldn’t make much difference politically, except that we’ve seen with the likes of Trump that there may be some advantage to a state ceremony for foreign leaders.
Economically, there are estimates that the boost to tourism exceeds the cost, and while many people still visit places like the Palace of Versailles, there is a specific appeal to tourists towards a current royal home like Buckingham Palace.
Charles has used what influence he has to push for environmental issues sometimes, so at least some of his influence is positive.
I’m fine with people liking or disliking the monarchy overall. However, the issue in part in the US has been extreme wealth and privilege having power while hidden from scrutiny.
Any alternative needs to be considered to make sure it is actually better than the status quo, so it would be good to see estimates of political, economic and social impact from changing to a republic.
Is Starmer over? Is the monarchy over? If the Epstein files are released in full, pretty much all of the Western political system could be over.
I heard a suggestion last year that the UK should prepare for removing the monarchy in 2066 on the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings, and make a big thing of it.
That gives us 40 years to reform elections in the commons and replace the lords with a democratic alternative (which definitely needs to be done first to avoid concentrating more power in Downing St).
I’ll be dead.
I can’t wait that long.