The Disgrace of Prince Andrew and what it means for America
On Dec.1, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was officially stripped of his final royal titles, specifically his membership of the Order of the Garter, by King Charles III. The culmination of this disgrace, which began in October with the loss of his princehood as a result of his contact with Jeffrey Epstein, also means that he will have to move out of the royal estates into his new “private accommodations.”
This public disgrace specifically results from his enlistment of the American billionaire to traffic Virginia Giuffre, who recently took her own life, and his role in introducing women to Epstein, whom the billionaire abused. Even his Vice-Admiralty in the British Royal Navy is at risk of being stripped from him, but it will take Parliament to execute such a decision.
Effectively, Andrew has been reduced from any and all positions of royal authority, and has been sent into exile. Even though us Americans across the pond severed ties with the monarchy 249 years ago, this event poses a grave warning.
The loss of Andrew’s titles, the stripping of a knighthood 677 years old and his eviction from royal quarters is effectively a termination of public office, as well as a ban from future civil service. The last time a similar instance occurred was in 1919, when Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, colluded with the German Kaiser.
In Britain’s monarchy, even though it has been stripped of authority like a tree of its branches, — which Parliament weaves into a garland for itself— the titles of royalty and nobility stand as a standard for their bearers to live up to and that the people can hold their leaders to. These titles allow for the nobility to be held accountable, by describing the nature of their office, and how their authority should be handled.
Our political system is far more involved in the scandal of Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes than Britain’s, but we have only gone so far as releasing a list of Epstein’s clientele, without any provisions for justice for the victims, or any kind of reparation. There is much concern that our system is so corrupt that it allows such evil to go unpunished, and yet it seems we have set aside the ruler which we might have used to mete out a proper measure.
Our Constitution denies the granting of any titles of nobility in Art. 1 Sec. 9, the founders likely being concerned about the emergence of an entrenched aristocracy, such as what emerged in early modern England, which would order society around itself and agglomerate public holdings, as Parliament and the dukes did. Furthermore, office holders are privileged from arrest, save in certain cases specified by Art. 1 Sec. 6, in order to preserve stability in government and to guard against political persecution.
However, we have lost the power that comes with a title, and the ability to grant titles. Without them, we have allowed bad men to become royalty without being royal. We have allowed them to be nobility without holding them to be noble.
One might say that the cancel culture that has been developed can serve the purpose which royal titles do by tying one’s social standing to a cultural and popular criteria. However, for such a cancel culture to truly be effective, and not simply be abused to criticize and ostracise those we dislike, must have a standard which can be applied in an instant, which is understood by all people, and which encourages those under it to strive to uphold its value: namely, a title.
We must seek to preserve our government and our society, but in order to preserve it, we must ensure that the law is not being abused by the ones who are entrusted with it. We may have discarded the kings, but we must take pains that our aristocracy is governed by the best, that is, the wise, the virtuous and the good.