by liberal japonicus
The Bal des Ardent post mentioned Prince Andrew’s current difficulties, which seem to have gotten worse with the posthumous publication of Virginia Guiffre’s memoir.
If you aren’t following this, Andrew, who has always never been the brightest bulb in the Windsor marquee, had a pretty extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. One of his main accusers was a woman that Epstein apparently trafficked, Virginia Guiffre. Guiffre committed suicide in April and the memoir was published based on her express wish.
The Grauniad is my go-to for discussion of Prince Andrew, and their coverage is here. Since the Bal des Ardent post has been largely US-centric, I thought folks might what to have a separate place to put bets on the over/under for the monarchy’s existence.
This takes me back to 1977, the year of the queen’s silver jubilee (the 25th year of her reign). There was much love shown for the monarchy, and a leftist reaction to it: I had a “Stuff the Jubilee” poster on my wall. The Sex Pistols released God Save the Queen, which would have been number 1 in the UK charts during the Jubilee week, had the charts not been blatantly fixed.
My impression is that there’s now less strong feeling either way. Today’s royal family is seen largely as a soap opera: naturally there’s a black sheep in it.
I expect the monarchy to survive as long as it’s a big tourist draw for Americans.
Andrew is a very stupid, arrogant, entitled creep. It’s perfectly possible he didn’t know that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked, he would have assumed that a beautiful young girl wanted to sleep with a handsome prince (he was handsome, I regret to confirm), and if he even knew she was 17 that was above the age of consent here. But his general behaviour, in this issue as in everything else except his military service in the Falklands war, reveals his appalling character, and the most recent revelations that he lied in that BBC interview by claiming he had cut ties with Epstein in 2010, when an email from him to E in 2011 has since come out (dated after the famous photo became public) saying ““Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.”
You can imagine how the words I have bolded have landed here. As far as the royals in general are concerned, I think things are in flux. Feeling against Harry and Meghan is somewhat stronger here than in the US, but William and Catherine are regarded pretty favourably, and since William in particular has let it be known that he is implacably against Andrew, won’t have him at his coronation, and intends to modernise the monarchy when he is King, I don’t see any likelihood of any really significant change any time soon.
My impression was that British support for the monarchy has been based, for most of her lifetime, on support for Queen Elizabeth herself. King Charles simply doesn’t have that lifetime establishment of support. So he is forced (I have no idea if he recognizes it or not) to act in ways, and in circumstances, that his mother never had to worry about.
In the specific case of Andrew, it looks (from across the pond and across a continent in addition) like the Crown is going to have to throw him under the bus — whatever that amounts to in detail. Which is probably what he deserves, but isn’t going to be easy for his brother. And, if Andrew’s past behavior ends up taking down the monarchy, the fiddling details will likely take years, if not decades, to sort out.
It’s true that there are undoubtedly a lot of other people, especially but not exclusively in the US, who interacted with Epstein and who deserve the same. Whether they, too, will get what they deserve depends on how many names get named, and with what kind of details.
The contortions that our House Speaker is going thru, and the amount of damage he (or Trump) is willing accept, in order to avoid making the “Epstein Files” public suggest that there is a whole lot of there there. We live in interesting times.
Throwing Andrew “under the bus” could be a lot more damaging, with double-decker buses.
I know it’s silly, but I’m one of those Americans who watches the royal family soap opera. I remember reading an opinion column years ago during the Reagan admin. The writer’s thesis was that the US would get better quality presidents if we had a powerless monarchy to be the focus for the people who are attracted by shiny object, which would make a president’s role more that of a policy wonk.
Anyway, why to I read about the monarchy and have thoughts about the members? Escapism, I think. It is a digression from thinking about real problems.
The writer’s thesis was that the US would get better quality presidents if we had a powerless monarchy to be the focus for the people who are attracted by shiny object, which would make a president’s role more that of a policy wonk.
Perhaps a better, i.e. less contentious, way to put this is: There are advantages to separating the job of head of state from the job of head of government. One spends most of his time on ceremonial functions. The other spends most of his time managing the executive branch of the (typically national) government. (Not to say that there might be something to be said for taking the same principle down to the state/province/region level.)
The first question someone proposing such a system needs to answer is: How do you pick those two people? In Britain, for example, the chief of state, the monarch, is a hereditary position, while the head of government is (indirectly**) elected. My impression is that the other (nominal) monarchies in Europe do something similar. There are doubtless other approaches, but I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable in the field to know of examples.
And this leads to the question for Britain, if they decide to abolish their monarchy: How do you choose a new chief of state going forward? I mean, you could just dump the necessary tasks in the PM. But have recent ones really demonstrated that they have the bandwidth to take in the additional work?
** It would be rude for someone from outside to describe the method as a kludge. Which is why I resisted the temptation.
Off topic
Ya know, it was really handy to be able to preview comments. Just to keep control over italics. So far, I haven’t grasped what I’m doing wrong. But sometimes I get the bar with a choice of such things, and sometimes I don’t.
wj, I seem to have mastered the italics and bold thing: you put your text in as normal, then highlight whichever text you want to alter, and then press the relevant button along the bottom. And then you exit the text and it lasts.
Also, I really miss the preview button too!
I spent the entire time my we watched “Downton Abbey” annoying my wife by yelling at the Crawley’s to learn how to put on their own damned clothes. So I’m probably not the person most likely to have a positive opinion of the royal family.
All of that said, from this side of the pond the UK royals seem to have this weird dichotomony between the ones who are actually king or queen (or in line to be), and who seem to take the responsibilities of their office seriously, and the rest of the family, who end up having too much money and privilege and not enough to do so they end up behaving badly.
Over here, we’ve had Billy Beer, the wild and crazy Bush twins, Hunter Biden, and Uday and Qusay Trump. So I’m not sure we’re in a position to point fingers.
If it’s working for you all, carry on. Seems expensive, though. And they should all learn to put on their own clothes.
The writer’s thesis was that the US would get better quality presidents if we had a powerless monarchy to be the focus for the people who are attracted by shiny object, which would make a president’s role more that of a policy wonk.
I don’t want a President who is a policy wonk. I want a President who’s good at administering policy set by Congress. A policy wonk President who doesn’t get what he wants from Congress is tempted to find ways around them. Trump has yielded to that temptation, bigly.
Ya know, it was really handy to be able to preview comments. Just to keep control over italics.
At least in my browser, the comment edit box properly shows me all of the text formatting. Preview would seem to be redundant, at least for that purpose.
All of that said, from this side of the pond the UK royals seem to have this weird dichotomony between the ones who are actually king or queen (or in line to be), and who seem to take the responsibilities of their office seriously, and the rest of the family, who end up having too much money and privilege and not enough to do so they end up behaving badly.
Well, not always by a long shot. Princess Anne is an absolute workhorse, carries out more duties than any of the others and is much admired by the majority of the public. She also refused to let her two children be given titles. And Edward the VIII was the opposite in every way. In the current generation of the King’s sibs, Prince Edward (now Duke of Edinburgh) and his wife appear to have come rather dutifully good. It’s a weird old system, for sure. But even republicans of my acquaintance, looking at e.g. Trump, have started shuddering at the idea of an elected head of state.
I think we should take all their money and use it for education, infrastructure and health care.
It’s all a big scam and at the root of the class society which is detrimental to the nation’s psyche. (And it’s not only them: look at the Duke of Westminster etc.)
Well, not always by a long shot.
I stand corrected!
oops!
Well, Andrew is now Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and is being moved from his huge house on the Windsor estate to a (presumably) smaller house much further from London, on the Sandringham estate. There appears to be no precedent for this, and the interview with Virginia Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law (who are both in tears) is very moving. It’s my impression that most people in the UK are perfectly satisfied with this.
FYI The last person to be de-princed was the Duke of Cumberland, who fought for the Kaiser in WW1, so treason, and the last person to have his KG removed (Knight of the Garter) was Emperor Hirohito in WW2.
This New Statesman podcast had a detail that I found fascinating (at the 3:50 mark), that Andrew, in his published statement, said that he was relinquishing ‘my titles’.
Telling and totally unsurprising.
https://youtu.be/F2Ww_82ifhg?si=2vC0VBGuVb0IbF6l
lj: yes, but have you seen Buckingham Palace’s statement today? A very different tone….
The statement from Buckingham Palace in full:
His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.
Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.
These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him
.
Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.
You can’t help wondering how some of the other people who “played” with Epstein are feeling about this. Interestingly, Giuffre’s brother and SIL, and the other Epstein victim interviewed on Newsnight, were all very approving of and grateful for the King’s behaviour in this. I wonder whether this will to a large extent lance the boil, at least over here and regarding the Royal Fam.
Interesting stuff. I wonder if anyone vetted Andrew’s statement. Clearly damage control mode.
“Relinquishing” as opposed to “being stripped of”.
I’m put in mind of the executives who get offered the choice of resign or get fired. Or the occasional enlisted military methodology (for undesirable, but not actually dangerous, tasks): “I want 3 volunteers. You, you, and you.”
There are two weeks between Andrew’s statement, and the Palace’s. They must have thought the former would do enough – but subsequent public disquiet about Andrew’s lies about the timeline, and (if my reaction is anything to go by) disgust at his sanctimonious claim to be acting as always in the interest of the country, in addition to the release of Giuffre’s book, clearly made it necessary to cut him loose.