Stripped of finery, detained by police as an ordinary citizen: now Andrew enters a new era – and Britain too
By Anique Butt5 min read
The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a seismic moment for the royal family as well as for himself. On one hand, it is hard to believe any greater harm can befall the family after weeks of drip-feed from the US Department of Justice’s Epstein files. On the other, a royal arrest of this sort is unprecedented. Enough is already in the public domain to indicate that police believe that there must be a case to answer to the charge of misconduct in public office.
King Charles, who apparently was not warned in advance that his brother was to be arrested, has been scrupulous in his response. “The law must take its course,” he said, offering prosecutors “full and wholehearted support and cooperation”. Whatever happens now, a line has been crossed in the life of the nation. A once exalted royal, facing serious judicial investigation by authorities acting on behalf of the citizenry. Stripped of status and finery, he faces the spotlight as would any other inhabitant of these isles. One cannot know the outcome, but just this arrest feels like a pivotal moment.
Until now the royal family’s involvements with the law have been minimal. In her wilder days Princess Anne’s dog bit a girl in Windsor Great Park and she was fined £500. She was also fined £400 for speeding in Gloucestershire. Apart from that, researchers into royal quarrels with the law have had to go back to Charles I and Mary, Queen of Scots.
This case begins at the time when Andrew strayed from the tedious round of royal duties, of fete openings and palace parties. He won a role as a government trade representative. It was a controversial appointment, made at the request of Buckingham Palace, which required him to travel extensively abroad. He was acting in effect as a junior minister, well away from the domestic political fray. He was not a policymaker, more a trade promoter. Andrew’s qualifications for the job were much discussed at the time, but the pressure from the palace was intense.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor riding a horse in a wooded aea
‘Nobody above law,’ says DPP amid claims against Andrew
Read more
The extent to which members of the royal family are entitled to impinge on matters of government has long been vexed, if only because all public decisions are made in the monarch’s name. Mike Bartlett’s play Charles III famously involved the king refusing to sign a bill with which he strongly disagreed. He had to abdicate. His advisers pointed out that he was, in effect, a cypher without any exercise of discretion. He pointed out that if the bill could not pass without his active consent, it could not pass. He had refused that consent.
That Charles has felt strongly about many issues – his friends would say most – was well known. From architecture to agriculture and from town planning to herbal remedies he was desperate for “something to be done”. He was scrupulous in arguing that as mere heir to the throne, he was entitled like any citizen to hold views on political issues, only to avoid party politics. This was sometimes a nuance too far, witness the blizzard of “black spider memos” that poured into ministerial in-trays. What Charles did know is that when he took the throne that would stop. We assume it has.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey, London, 6 May 2023.
View image in fullscreen
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey, London, 6 May 2023. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
Andrew is not the monarch. His status, like that of a dozen “working royals”, descends from the decision of the then queen and Prince Philip in 1969 to redefine the British monarchy as a “royal family”. The head of state became the family of state. This was popular as the young children were filmed playing round barbecues at Balmoral. It came across less well as overprotected teenagers blossomed into wealthy celebrities.
Monarchy in a democracy depends entirely on the extent to which the king or queen of the day enjoys public support. Queen Elizabeth II made that dependence extend to the support of her family, leading in turn to her fierce backing of Andrew. When support seemed to evaporate, as in the 1990s largely over the Princess Diana affair, the family had nowhere to turn. It “ruled” in effect courtesy of Ipsos Mori and Gallup, and the latter at one point put support at just 26%.
The latest turn in the royal saga adds to the urgency of reform. The royal family was a constitutional wrong turning. At a time when monarchies across Europe were adopting purely figurative roles – the “bicycling monarchs” – the reliance of Britain’s extended royal family on celebrity and extravagance was simply out of date. What was more, it was grossly unfair in the pressure it put on the individuals involved. Unlikely ever to get the top job, they were condemned to a life of luxury – and exposure – in return for good behaviour. Not all could meet the bargain.
Charles survived the tribulations of his marriage and won through. His elder son, William, has emerged as a model heir to the throne. That cannot brush aside the difficulties into which Andrew and Harry were plunged. Nor can it justify the ongoing fiscal leniency extended to the royal estates or the plethora of palaces and retainers sustained at public expense. It is not that the royal family is indefensibly expensive. It is that the expense serves only to undermine the monarchy when things go wrong.
Whatever happens to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor now, it lies within the power of the monarch to change this state of affairs. Charles hinted at reform before he came to the throne. That he indulged in his absurd “anointment” in Westminster Abbey suggested this was skin deep. William letting it be known that he will not move into Buckingham Palace suggests a step in the right direction. He should show willing by also incorporating the palace gardens in the royal parks. But what would most benefit his children and those round them is to remove the capital letters from the “royal family”.
By Simon Jenkins
King Charles, who apparently was not warned in advance that his brother was to be arrested, has been scrupulous in his response. “The law must take its course,” he said, offering prosecutors “full and wholehearted support and cooperation”. Whatever happens now, a line has been crossed in the life of the nation. A once exalted royal, facing serious judicial investigation by authorities acting on behalf of the citizenry. Stripped of status and finery, he faces the spotlight as would any other inhabitant of these isles. One cannot know the outcome, but just this arrest feels like a pivotal moment.
Until now the royal family’s involvements with the law have been minimal. In her wilder days Princess Anne’s dog bit a girl in Windsor Great Park and she was fined £500. She was also fined £400 for speeding in Gloucestershire. Apart from that, researchers into royal quarrels with the law have had to go back to Charles I and Mary, Queen of Scots.
This case begins at the time when Andrew strayed from the tedious round of royal duties, of fete openings and palace parties. He won a role as a government trade representative. It was a controversial appointment, made at the request of Buckingham Palace, which required him to travel extensively abroad. He was acting in effect as a junior minister, well away from the domestic political fray. He was not a policymaker, more a trade promoter. Andrew’s qualifications for the job were much discussed at the time, but the pressure from the palace was intense.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor riding a horse in a wooded aea
‘Nobody above law,’ says DPP amid claims against Andrew
Read more
The extent to which members of the royal family are entitled to impinge on matters of government has long been vexed, if only because all public decisions are made in the monarch’s name. Mike Bartlett’s play Charles III famously involved the king refusing to sign a bill with which he strongly disagreed. He had to abdicate. His advisers pointed out that he was, in effect, a cypher without any exercise of discretion. He pointed out that if the bill could not pass without his active consent, it could not pass. He had refused that consent.
That Charles has felt strongly about many issues – his friends would say most – was well known. From architecture to agriculture and from town planning to herbal remedies he was desperate for “something to be done”. He was scrupulous in arguing that as mere heir to the throne, he was entitled like any citizen to hold views on political issues, only to avoid party politics. This was sometimes a nuance too far, witness the blizzard of “black spider memos” that poured into ministerial in-trays. What Charles did know is that when he took the throne that would stop. We assume it has.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey, London, 6 May 2023.
View image in fullscreen
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey, London, 6 May 2023. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
Andrew is not the monarch. His status, like that of a dozen “working royals”, descends from the decision of the then queen and Prince Philip in 1969 to redefine the British monarchy as a “royal family”. The head of state became the family of state. This was popular as the young children were filmed playing round barbecues at Balmoral. It came across less well as overprotected teenagers blossomed into wealthy celebrities.
Monarchy in a democracy depends entirely on the extent to which the king or queen of the day enjoys public support. Queen Elizabeth II made that dependence extend to the support of her family, leading in turn to her fierce backing of Andrew. When support seemed to evaporate, as in the 1990s largely over the Princess Diana affair, the family had nowhere to turn. It “ruled” in effect courtesy of Ipsos Mori and Gallup, and the latter at one point put support at just 26%.
The latest turn in the royal saga adds to the urgency of reform. The royal family was a constitutional wrong turning. At a time when monarchies across Europe were adopting purely figurative roles – the “bicycling monarchs” – the reliance of Britain’s extended royal family on celebrity and extravagance was simply out of date. What was more, it was grossly unfair in the pressure it put on the individuals involved. Unlikely ever to get the top job, they were condemned to a life of luxury – and exposure – in return for good behaviour. Not all could meet the bargain.
Charles survived the tribulations of his marriage and won through. His elder son, William, has emerged as a model heir to the throne. That cannot brush aside the difficulties into which Andrew and Harry were plunged. Nor can it justify the ongoing fiscal leniency extended to the royal estates or the plethora of palaces and retainers sustained at public expense. It is not that the royal family is indefensibly expensive. It is that the expense serves only to undermine the monarchy when things go wrong.
Whatever happens to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor now, it lies within the power of the monarch to change this state of affairs. Charles hinted at reform before he came to the throne. That he indulged in his absurd “anointment” in Westminster Abbey suggested this was skin deep. William letting it be known that he will not move into Buckingham Palace suggests a step in the right direction. He should show willing by also incorporating the palace gardens in the royal parks. But what would most benefit his children and those round them is to remove the capital letters from the “royal family”.
By Simon Jenkins
