Andrew: An Aristocratic Abomination

I would describe myself as a cautious monarchist. It is not that I agree with the monarchy as an institution but rather that I fear a President Farage or someone of similar bilious intent. In an alternative world, I would see them consigned to a council estate in Wolverhampton, à la Sue Townsend, but we have to work with the circumstances we have, not the ones we want. The Andrew farce though has really caused me to question my views on monarchy altogether. While Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor might feel slighted by his exile to Sandringham, this seems a punishment reserved for royalty. With more likely to emerge about the artist formerly known as Prince (thank you James O’Brien), there is reason to assert that Andrew’s behaviour would be deemed completely persona non-grata, if he happened to be for example, a black, female divorcee his treatment would have been far swifter and his exile far more vicious.

Whilst critics could argue that Andrew has never actually admitted to or been convicted of any misdemeanours, the payment of £12 million to Virginia Giuffre is surely a solar-eclipsing royal standard red flag. In an age of economic difficulty and with an incoming budget that is almost certain to bring tax increases for some, Andrew’s lifestyle being funded by the King in some backroom deal to allow the monarchy to maintain what little shred of credibility it has left, is farcical. 

Why should we put up with this as subjects, but also why should we accept that just by birth right this scrounger deserves the protection that being the brother of a King affords him, even if that same protection wasn’t afforded to the King’s son. This is a medieval method of problem solving. Just in the past fortnight we’ve seen Andrew move from a palace to another palace, whilst being told this is some massive downgrade. Well, I’m sorry to say, this isn’t how the PR outside the palace sees it. I feel more than just vitriol against Andrew, of course. It’s the victims I feel sorry for, the ones we are not talking about. While Virginia Giuffre took her own life earlier this year, there are many other victims of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. He was protected by his wealth to some extent and the same can be said of Andrew. 

His status affords him an innate amount of security that one in a less privileged position wouldn’t have and the King is supporting this, and he knows this. Despite appearing morally upstanding as a man, with his support for environmental and charitable causes evidenced by the Prince’s (now King’s) Trust, King Charles has been very tentative to remove the honours of Andrew Windsor, and only after several weeks of intense scrutiny and indeed years of not-so-happy speculation did he deem it necessary to remove them. This is another disjoint between society and the monarchy. Guilt by association would normally be harnessed as a whip by all media outlets on a celebrity or commoner with lesser protection than a member of the monarchy, but when it’s one of their own, the monarchy closes rings around the supposed guilty one. We are indeed seeing this currently with the Southport killer’s family. Is guilt by association enough though? Even Epstein was not convicted of his federal charges, although his past preceded him somewhat, and so too does Andrew’s. 

Although Andrew was no doubt a soldier who really got stuck in to his duties in the Falklands, he was also known as Randy Andy for his promiscuity and lack of control for his inhibitions. The excuses that are made for men do not ever justify actions. If we consider the wider societal context of these allegations, these people are our role-models, people we look up to. In a similar vein, recently we have seen the release of Lily Allen’s fantastic new album, which exposes revelations regarding toxic masculinity shown towards her by David Harbour during their relationship. Harbour’s behaviour has also been criticised by Millie Bobby Brown, his Stranger Things co-star. What links Prince Andrew and David Harbour is not abuse but a sense of control of a situation. Whether this is as a result of previous events in the controller’s life or as a result of egotism cultivated by inner insecurity, we see this with toxic masculinity seemingly everywhere, in the less morbid circumstances of Harbour and the more morbid circumstances of Andrew and indeed, the Southport killer. Although it might be dime store psychology, they all display egotism and a desire to control beyond what they have been taught by authority figures in their life. What makes it worse is that Andrew has literally been conditioned from birth to believe that he was special. Even disregarding the Queen’s behaviour in pandering to Andrew, he would still have been conditioned to believe that he was a special person due to his privileged upbringing and this hasn’t helped the outcome of Andrew’s eventual character. The sense of entitlement is not innately royal by any means. It exists, and empathy has to be taught to us, rather than it being an inbred condition. 

Another idea to note is the internalised misogyny of society. According to the UN Women UK’s report of 2021, more than 70% of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in public. If this is what women have to deal with in public, the idea that this behaviour ceases to exist in private is farcical. The public sphere only illuminates limited cases of criminal behaviour towards women, with more than 90% of incidents of sexual harassment going unreported according to reports. This is why we really need to check ourselves as men, and not just go after public cases like Andrew Windsor. Should Andrew Windsor ever face legal action in the USA we may see some consequences for the actions that Epstein and co. inflicted on normal women, but if the reports are to be believed on prosecutions, I would unfortunately not hold my breath on any appropriate action.

Image: Eliot Lord

Licence.

No image changes made.