So, Prince Andrew is to be “stripped of his titles.” How satisfying. How symbolic. How utterly pointless.
We can all share a brief moment of catharsis — the monarchy wagging a disapproving finger at one of its own. A round of headlines, a flurry of official statements, a sense of something being done. And yet, what has actually changed? Andrew remains, by sheer accident of birth, a prince. We can shuffle around the titles, hide him from the balcony, pretend he’s no longer “His Royal Highness”. And beneath it all lies the more uncomfortable truth: these gestures exist to fill the space where justice should have been. There’s been no prosecution, no accountability — only the pageantry of consequence.
The truth is as embarrassing as it is simple: we get the royals we can’t vote for. Every time we let the institution roll on, unquestioned, we endorse it. Every time we accept that someone’s birth entitles them to constitutional privilege, we sign off on the next scandal, the next “slimming down” that changes absolutely nothing.
As Liberals, we should have no truck with inherited power. It’s indefensible that a 21st-century democracy still clings to a family business masquerading as a constitutional necessity. If we genuinely believe in equality, accountability, and merit, then the monarchy isn’t an eccentric quirk — it’s an insult.
So yes, strip Andrew of whatever you like. Change his nameplate, revoke his honorary colonelcies, banish him to a smaller palace. But as long as we preserve the institution that made him “Prince” in the first place, we’re only tidying up the mess, not fixing the plumbing.
It’s time to stop pretending. The problem isn’t one prince — it’s the idea of princes at all.
* Neil Casey is Vice Convener - Policy, Scottish Liberal Democrats. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
22 Comments
I disagree. The monarchy only survives with public support. If a republican party got a 1 seat majority with 30% of the vote they’d be gone.
I don’t personally mind having truck with inherited power as long as a democratic parliament and written constitution is sovereign.
This move is an attempt to prevent parliament exerting itself to claim the right to order, title and designate who is and isn’t in the royal household and line of succession, any more than it already has under existing laws and precedents.
I’ve said it before and will say it again, the primary concern of democratic liberals right now should be the unreasonable and arbitrary power of the executive, which is largely the prime minister right now. I would, however, move on that opinion if I felt that the monarch was a barrier to reform and protecting the power of the prime minister against a more democratic system, in order to protect their own power.
Removing the monarch before reforming the prime ministership risks setting up an executive president or enshrining the powers of the executive PM we have. Parliament should appoint ministers and elect prime ministers, not the PM or the monarch. Princes is a concern, but a lesser concern.
Sound argument from Neil Casey. As for the Andrew formerly known as Prince, I would make sure he gets his All-England bus pass, perhaps with someone ensuring he knows how to use it.
Also, if brexit showed us one thing it’s that you need to know 100% what you’re replacing it with before you dispose of existing structure.
@ Geoff Reid, ” I would make sure he gets his All-England bus pass”.
He’s been subsidised enough already, Geoff.
I’m not sure that abolishing the monarchy – which arguably needs to be considered – is as important or urgent as a) ensuring the H of C is more representative of voters – after all, that’s where decisions affecting us all are made and b) making the second chamber more accountable, as long as that has some say jin legislation
Mr A. Windsor has never been found guilty of the charges levelled against him, because he used his wealth and influence to buy off his accuser. (Or possibly the wealth of his mother)
Of course, someone like him should never be allowed to use his titles to enrich himself, whilst bringing shame on everyone around him.
I think it would be fair to say that the Monarchy has not done itself any favours by continuing to appear to tolerate him for so many years.
Of course, it doesn’t help that he seems completely amoral and lacking in intelligence or the ability to spot a wrong’un.
Maybe that’s a lesson for the future. If we continue to have a constitutional monarch, then the state should not be financing a large extended royal family, but just the monarch and his immediate family. Let all the others go out to work, and pay their taxes just like the rest of us.
Incidentally, poor Mr Windsor is not being let go with nothing. His lease is being bought out and his brother is finding a house for him, but not it seems for his ex-wife and children.
Totally agree with the sentiment
David Raw. No. I saw it as a substitute for the existing subsidies. As I know from frequent usage it is now worth about £2,000 per annum to me.
Totally agree. Remember that Mt Mountbatten Windsor is still a royal with millions to his name and he is going to get a three figure sum for moving out of Royal Lodge. Ordinary person? I don’t think so. Will he still have his servants? Of course he will.
I’ve been saying the same thing as Neil Casey for as long as I can remember. That must be 65 years or so now.
I’d always do my best to stay away from the TV when we had a Royal Wedding. The last time I was involved in a near-fight, actually just a bit of pushing and shoving until someone intervened to prevent it getting out of hand, was in 1977 when someone in a pub took exception to my “Stuff the Jubilee” badge.
I seemed to remember the words “Red Scum” being used.
So it’s good to see that others of a more centrist disposition are now joining in!
It’s difficult to know where to begin: Neil’s emotion-driven republicanism ignores so many facts. Perhaps a good place would be the Roberts family on C4 News, praising the King for acting against his brother, while the democratically elected US government wilfully allows the other perpetrators to go unpunished. It obviously upsets some people that the royals benefit from an accident of birth, but the alternative would be an elected head of state – someone like Farage or Boris Johnson if opinion polls are to be believed. Neil also states that the monarchy rolls on “unquestioned” although the truth is that it is continually being questioned – for example in the article in which he embedded that assertion !
“…….but the alternative would be an elected head of state”
The electorate doesn’t have to be the whole country. It could be the Parliament. Even if the electorate does include everyone, the powers of the Head of State don’t have to be any different from the current monarch.
Nothing much need change in a practical sense.
The royals rely on the public continuing to show undue deference to them without question. Many assume that just because it is there we cannot challenge it’s existence. I know many disagree but why do we have a national anthem about a person rather than a country?
Are readers aware that the Sovereign Grant for 2025/6 is £132.1 million, up from £86 m the previous year? The royals also get shedloads of money from the Duchies of Cormwall and Lancaster which also owns lots of land in the UK. In addition the King pays no inheritance tax following a deal with John Majors Government in 1993. This sort of stuff makes my blood boil as it is so unfair.
Republic might get a bad press but all they want is to achieve a democratic Head of State that is elected and accountable to the people. It can be ceremonial and symbolic like Ireland which is a good role model for good government. No more unwritten constitution too. I long for the day our country no longer has one family having one of their number witb the right to be head of state.
It is most encouraging that a growing number of people are wanting us to become a Republic as they are fed up with the nepotism, elitism and deference. Why should one often dysfunctional family have the right to regard us as their subjects? This royal stuff belongs to history. If our decision makers in all parties cared, they would work together to abolish the monarchy and replace it with something far better and democratically accountable.
In my opinion the main problem with the 1789 French Revolution was that it stopped at Calais..
I always find it strange that the royals dress up in uniforms of the armed services. They are not entitled to them if they haven’t served in them. Anne always dresses in the uniform of a midshipwpman at the Cenotaph. It reminds me of a
Traffic warden.
I normally agree with expats, but I’m afraid I draw the line at installing a guillotine in Guildford.
What I do think, as a citizen, is there should be a thorough review of the Royal finances and all the nonsenses such as Deputy Lieutenants……. And please, let’s get rid of references to the Empire on gongs in the honours lists.
@ David. No, David, the uniform is that of a full Admiral though she never actually served in the Navy or any of the forces. She also wears eleven medals which must take a bit of polishing for somebody.
My Dad only got four medals for five years combat service in the RAF in WWll …… though to be fair, much later, he got the Chevalier de Legion d’Honneur from the French for D.Day and the Normandy campaign…… six less than HRH….. but less to polish.
David, I very much doubt Princess Anne has ever worn a Midshipwoman’s uniform at the Cenotaph. She holds the rank of Admiral.