How does the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor affect the British monarchy?
LondonThe impact of the arrest of former Prince Andreu The actions of Andrew—who was Queen Elizabeth II's favorite son—represent a deep crack in the very foundations of the British monarchy. This is because it calls into question the premise of its supposed moral exemplarity and transparency to the public. One more detail, however, is crucial to supporting this assertion: the strategy of distancing this black sheep of the family from the Crown has been extremely slow and calculated. It has always been in response to the events and accusations that began to surface about Andrew as early as 2010 and 2011. Buckingham Palace, first under Elizabeth II and now with Charles III as head of the family, has always acted reactively, not proactively. All of this allows us to legitimately think that a member of the royal family has ultimately been condemned to ostracism not because the monarchy acted out of ethical conviction, but out of an instinct for survival in the face of public pressure.
The arrest does not merely imply a simple reputational crisis, but rather a process of institutional degradation that has forced the Crown to strip one of its closest members of all royal dignity in order to transform him, before the courts, Mr. Andrew Mountbatten WindsorStripping him of his title of prince last October, in a desperate attempt to save the rest of the monarchy from a stain that, for now, seems indelible.
Andrew's strategy of gradually distancing himself from Buckingham Palace began in 2019, shortly after the disastrous BBC interview in which he showed no empathy for Epstein's victims, but always in a move forced by circumstances and not by a desire for transparency. However, it still took three years to put up the first effective firewall, when Queen Elizabeth II... He relinquished all his military titles..
When it occurred the multimillion-dollar payment to Jeffrey Epstein's most prominent victim, Virginia Giuffre, It was done with the utmost financial opacity, and no one has yet explained where the twelve to fourteen million pounds came from, with which Andrew avoided a civil trial in New York: whether from taxpayers' pockets or from the untaxed funds of the royal family. What is the Duchy of Lancaster like?
All of this, precisely because of this privilege of having a tax-free source of income, can fuel the resentment of a young generation struggling to make ends meet while the royals enjoy obscene privileges. In the case of the detainee, this is doubly true. Officially, Andrew eats, has a roof over his head, and horses to ride thanks to the money that the king graciously provides him.
Generational divide
The consequence of the most fabulous scandal to engulf the world's most glamorous monarchy is a clear generational divide with the public. The most loyal supporters might swallow the bitter pill of the "bad apple" theory. But Generation Z citizens see Andrew as the symbol of an outdated system that protects its own tooth and nail. At least until the intervention of the law becomes almost inevitable. The British monarchy is not sailing in safe waters. Its approval ratings are revealing. More than 80% of Britons supported it in the 1980s. Today, they barely exceed 50%.
The outdated image of the institution is also reflected in the wake of this whole affair. While Prince William attempted this week, on a BBC program, to project an image of modernity and commitment to issues like mental health, admitting the difficulty of understanding "my own emotions," the institution he will lead has repeatedly refused to apologize for having facilitated, supported, and protected these actions for so long.
An individual who has used his rank as a weapon to silence accusations—those made by Virginia Giuffre—and to maintain a position as trade envoy that his own brother, King Charles III, questioned years ago. He questioned it, but never openly opposed his continued tenure. In this regard, it is well known, and has been repeatedly reported, that the government, first under Tony Blair, and then under Gordon Brown, accepted Andrew's role at the request of Queen Elizabeth II.
That it is a police force—in this new case, those investigating the activities of the king's brother—and not Buckingham Palace's own self-criticism that must demand accountability for alleged misconduct in the performance of public duties represents a failure of the British system of oversight. Paradoxically, it may also offer some relief to a society that needed to see that extreme privilege does not equate to total impunity.
Charles III and the future king, Prince William, now face the challenge of managing—and rectifying, if they intend for the institution to survive this new upheaval—the legacy of having protected an alleged criminal against whom evidence of criminal acts continues to mount. If the Crown is unable to explicitly apologize and take responsibility for the silence maintained for almost a decade regarding the victims of Epstein—and Andrew—the British people may begin to question whether it truly represents them. However, it would be too bold to claim that the damage to the monarchy is fatal.