The monarchy is under threat. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could even bring down the whole house of cards. These are the opinions we read and hear every hour.
I agree that things are bad for the monarchy. But I don’t believe that the excesses of one greedy, entitled, and not very intelligent 66-year-old man constitute a good reason for getting rid of an institution that has served this country well.
Republicans are having a free run. They tend not to declare their affiliations, and fly below the radar. Every time the noose tightens around Mountbatten-Windsor, they redouble their criticisms of this wretched man and call for more decisive action from the King.
Monarchists must fight back. We aren’t fanatical in our allegiance. Most of us don’t wave flags as royal carriages pass by, or drop to our knees if we see a member of the Royal Family a hundred yards away. We simply know that if we got rid of the monarchy, what came next would be far worse.
Andrew is undeniably a disgrace – and I can say that without being sure whether he is guilty of the specific accusations made against him concerning sexual misdemeanours or passing state secrets to his paedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein.
But does anyone suggest that the Labour Party should be abolished because one of its leading lights, namely Peter Mandelson, consorted with Epstein and has also been accused of passing government secrets to him? Of course not.
I should add in a spirit of fairness that Andrew fought for his country as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. It’s true that Mandy once described himself as a ‘fighter not a quitter’ but all he was talking about was defending his own political career.
Many families have their black sheep, and over the past century the Royal Family has had its fair share. Edward VIII, who gave up his throne for a divorced American and then consorted with Nazis, was one. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is another. I exempt Prince Harry, who is merely silly.
Many families have their black sheep, and over the past century the Royal Family has had its fair share – including Edward VIII and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, writes Stephen Glover
Charles has been commendably decisive when dealing with his brother’s links to Epstein
Despite the occasional rotten apple, the modern Royal Family has been respectable and dutiful. Queen Elizabeth epitomised these qualities, and was widely loved and admired.
The present generation is no different. King Charles has hardly put a foot wrong since acceding to the throne and, though ill with cancer, exemplifies service. The Queen plays her part well. Other members of the Royal Family go about their business quietly and diligently.
In other words, Andrew is an aberration. If the rest of the Royal Family were cut from the same cloth – living high on the hog, behaving as though the country owed them a living and ignoring standards of decency – it would be impossible to defend the institution.
But they don’t behave in such a way. They are human, of course, and one or more of them may annoy us from time to time. But they do their duty. With William and Kate waiting reliably in the wings, the future would seem assured.
Except that republicans sense their opportunity. Instead of admitting the truth, which is that Mountbatten-Windsor is about as unrepresentative of his family as it is possible to be, they hope to precipitate a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Where are these republicans? In the Labour Party and the BBC and parts of the Press. For the most part, as I say, they don’t declare themselves – unlike a few outspoken, campaigning republicans, whose candour and honesty one can at least respect.
There is a hard core of this sort of republican in the Parliamentary Labour Party – MPs who prefix their oath of allegiance with additional words that distance them from the monarchy, and generally make no bones about their true feelings.
By and large, though, Labour MPs who dislike the monarchy usually keep their beliefs to themselves for fear of outraging patriotic working-class voters.
Labour, of course, hates the hereditary principle, which is why Tony Blair and Keir Starmer have between them deprived hereditary peers of the right to sit in the House of Lords.
The monarchy challenges that prejudice. It is tolerated by Labour as long as it remains popular. But if that popularity begins to wane, as it seems to be doing as a result of successive revelations about Andrew, all bets are off.
One of the most prominent critics of the disgraced ex-Prince is Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central, who is often given a pulpit by an obliging BBC. She is continually upping the ante.
Ms Maskell spearheaded a campaign demanding that Andrew should be deprived of his dukedom. That was duly done by the King. Now she is insisting that he should be removed from the line of succession. It looks as though that will be done, too. But it won’t be enough. She’ll be back for more.
Some monarchists may draw comfort from the thought that at least the Prime Minister is on their side. Didn’t he proudly brandish an invitation in front of Donald Trump for what he said was an ‘unprecedented’ second State visit to Britain?
That visit was politically useful to Starmer. I doubt he has any love for the monarchy. Indeed, in 2005 he was caught on camera saying: ‘I got made a Queen’s Counsel, which is odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy.’
Starmer has zigzagged so many times on so many issues that it’s hard to believe he has a settled view on anything apart from the need to save his own skin. If I were King Charles, I wouldn’t be confident of his steadfast and enduring support.
Observe how the argument moves on. The King strips Andrew of all his titles and banishes him to Norfolk. But another round of criticism comes along. BBC interviewers were asking yesterday whether he shouldn’t have done more sooner.
Yet it’s not easy to act against your own errant brother for whom you may still have some affection. I would say that Charles has been commendably decisive.
Nor do I think it fair to criticise the late Queen, who did so much for this country, for being over indulgent of Andrew, said to have been her favourite son. Wasn’t she being a loving mother? Surely we can understand that.
If you doubt that the republican cause is being surreptitiously advanced, look at a leader in yesterday’s Guardian, the Labour Party’s and the BBC’s favourite newspaper. It urged that ‘Parliament should now debate whether hereditary privilege can now exist with democratic accountability’.
This story isn’t finished. There may be more distasteful revelations about Andrew. He could end up in court. If that happens, the apocalyptic forecasts of the monarchy’s demise will only intensify. Emboldened republicans will increasingly step out of the shadows.
Those of us who support the monarchy – still the majority of the British people, I’m sure – shouldn’t remain silent. Andrew’s excesses aren’t characteristic of the Royal Family. The sins of one of its senior members shouldn’t be allowed to bring the whole edifice crashing down.
Most of us wouldn’t want President Trump as our head of State, or that Napoleonic re-tread in Cuban heels, President Macron. Nor, if the position were merely ceremonial, would we cherish President Tony Blair or (no offence intended) President Theresa May.
We’re fortunate to have what we’ve got. It is the product of ages. It’s not perfect, as nothing is in human affairs, but it works. If we hold our nerve, the monarchy will thrive long after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been forgotten.