Every time there’s a row involving the royal family, one question inevitably follows: will this finally be it for them? Will Britain finally tire of having a monarchy? And every time, the answer is no.
You can hear the question coming now, in the wake of the continued scandal around Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. The campaign group Republic clearly thinks the fallout can be turned into a generalised attack on the monarchy. It is demanding a “full blown inquiry into the royals, their links with Epstein and the two decades of cover ups”.
Republic’s Graham Smith said: “There is a palpable anger among the public who can see that Andrew being stripped of the use of his titles is no punishment at all.”
Labour MP Clive Lewis is also trying to broaden the story onto a more institutional basis. “It’s very clear the sense of entitlement that Prince Andrew has comes with being a prince and being part of the monarchy,” he said. “The bigger story here is the monarchy itself. It poses some very difficult questions about how power operates in this country.”
If only any of that were true. The world would be so much simpler if the sexual entitlement of wealthy men was restricted to the royalty. It would be a far, far easier problem to fix. But in fact, the opposite is the case. What’s telling about Andrew’s relationship with Epstein is how similar it is to all the other kinds of wealthy men, from business and politics, who were also friends with him.
One after another, a string of other men allegedly went to Epstein’s paedophile island. Captains of industry, CEOs, politicians, bankers. All of them seemed to share the same ambivalence about the women they found there, the same utter lack of interest. They viewed them like they did the material world around, as something to be used, to be exploited for gain. A rented asset.
Andrew’s relationship with Epstein is no more a commentary on the basic principles of the monarchy than Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein is a commentary on the basic principles of political communication strategy. It does not require the end of royalty any more than Donald Trump’s connection to the scandal requires the abolishment of the position of President of the United States.
The key issue here is entitlement among powerful men. That is the core of the matter. Institutionalising the issue minimises the scale of the problem.
This is why it is so wrong to suggest that Andrew has not been punished. He has been punished in the way that will hurt him most: through the removal of the basis for his entitlement.
He technically still retains his titles, because the removal of the dukedom would require an act of parliament and evidently neither the royal family nor the Government want the story on the front pages that long. But he cannot use those titles publicly or privately. He is essentially consigned to a royal lodge, socially ostracised by public and royalty alike, his name a byword for moral failure and idiot PR.
square ANNE MCELVOY Shameless Prince Andrew will not go quietly
Read More
Opponents of the monarchy will argue that this is not enough. They will say that the whole institution is obviously not fit for purpose and unjustifiable in the modern age.
They are correct that the monarchy is an absurd medieval relic. But what they do not understand is that it is an absurd medieval relic which works.
That is a terribly strange thing to say, but it is true. A politically neutral head of state allows us a figurehead who everyone can admire, across the political divide. In an era of aggressive tribalism, that is a very welcome constitutional component. Imagine we changed it today. What would we get? Another culture war fight – Richard Tice vs Zack Polanski for the throne of the land. God help us.
The monarchy is not the reason for the Epstein scandal. Nor is it the reason for the various other ills it is blamed for, like inequality or laissez faire capitalism. Look around the world. The US has no monarchy. It is one of the most unequal and under-regulated countries on earth. Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden do have a monarchy. They are some of the most equal and well governed countries on earth. There is simply no compelling way of concluding that the monarchy is a key causal factor in social justice or the quality of governance.
While the front pages dwell on Andrew, the royal family is doing the work that will see it stay relevant in the decades and centuries to come. This week, King Charles and Pope Leo will pray together at a service in the Sistine Chapel – the first time a British monarch and pope have done so since Henry VIII’s split from Rome in the 16th Century. It is the latest step in Charles’ attempt to be a “protector of faiths” as well as the “defender of the faith” – a key attribute of his approach which has seen the king reach out so persistently and effectively to Islam.
Over 30 years ago, Charles stated presciently that “our judgement of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to be the norm”. He has continued that approach as monarch, serving as a patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and visiting it over the summer. The monarchy is the mechanism by which this country talks to itself, it is the symbol by which it sees itself. When Charles speaks with Muslim leaders or learns Arabic to read the Quran, he is acting as a bridgehead between British cultures, easing tensions and alleviating some of the poison about Islam that we see online. As King, he can reach people progressive campaigners never will.
Meanwhile, William has side-stepped the usual formal royal interview and replaced it with a relatively candid and fairly open conversation with American actor Eugene Levy, apparently because he liked him in the American Pie films growing up. We see him in an unfamiliar pose – walking the dogs, in the pub. It’s a sign of a more informal, relaxed style more in line with shifting British sensibilities.
This is the careful, steady work that keeps the royal family relevant in each era, that prevents it fossilising and crumbling away. Critics of the monarchy can only see the insanity of the bloodline. They are so fixated on this aspect that they miss the constant efforts to make sure the institution stays relevant.
So once again, people will say that the end of the monarchy is finally coming and once again they will be wrong.
Hence then, the article about the monarchy is an absurd medieval relic but it works was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The monarchy is an absurd medieval relic – but it works )
Also on site :