Monarchy and Scandal (25.02.2026)

Monarchy and scandal…

How much damage has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor done to the monarchy?

Everyone is talking about this, and I thought I’d throw my money-worth into the mix.  But let me be upfront: I’m unashamedly in favour of the institution. It’s not one I would vote for if it were offered as a new idea, but since it exists, I believe it should continue to do so, and I’ll explain why.

In the main, the monarchy – functioning constitutionally and within a democratic framework – offers continuity with our history and a clear national identity. This is nothing to be sniffed at. At the highest level of the state, we have political neutrality and this ensures that our head of state is not a source of political division, unlike in the U.S. for example.

As we know, real political authority lies with elected representatives in Parliament. The monarchy therefore complements, rather than undermines, democratic accountability. This is because a hereditary head of state protects democracy by ensuring that no ambitious political figure can combine executive power with symbolic authority.

In fact, Montesquieu (a French political philosopher writing in the 18^th century) was impressed by the British system for this very reason; our “mixed constitution” prevents the concentration of power. Hegel agreed. The monarch’s role is largely formal, but it is symbolically important. It represents unity above partisan politics. King Charles symbolises the state as a whole and not a faction.

This provides the UK with long-term stability. Remember COIVD-19 and Elizabeth II’ stoicism?  While Number 10 partied, she shared our isolation, sitting alone during Prince Philip’s funeral. The Government let us down, but the Queen did not. And this is interesting because modern constitutional monarchies such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan for example, rank high in measures of political stability.

It is also interesting that personal misconduct such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s forays, does not equate to constitutional crisis. His behaviour – however damaging - doesn’t undermine democratic governance. Government can distance itself and continue functioning. This would be more problematic, for example, were Trump’s sons found to be similarly embroiled with Epstein.

Edmund Burke (18^th century British philosopher and politician) saw the British monarchy as part of our historical inheritance, binding generations together. While Parliament ensures accountability, the Crown symbolises national identity. Ceremonies such as the State Opening of Parliament and Trooping the Colour function as both spectacle and an expression of our shared history. They connect modern Britain with its past, and in a very tangible way, reinforce our sense of belonging. 

And let’s not forget that the Crown can also be a focal point for collective emotion. During the COVID pandemic, Elizabeth II thanked the NHS frontline on our behalf and thanked us all for staying at home and doing our part; she reminded us that we were a people of self-discipline, good-humoured resolve and fellow-feeling, and drawing on memories of the War, she said’ we will meet again’. The same words coming from the mouth of Boris Johnson would not have rung so true.

There is more to write. Consider its soft power around the world – it plays an important diplomatic and economic role, strengthening relationships with other countries in ways elected politicians often cannot. And let’s not forget the historic sites such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle which attract millions of visitors each year, contributing to the economy. Yes, the monarchy is funded in part by the public, but the revenue generated through tourism gives a return that exceeds the Sovereign Grant. In other words, they are a net contributor to public finances.

Of course, there are valid arguments against the monarchy. It is hereditary and not determined by merit; its symbolic power undermines our collective belief in equal opportunity (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor represents the worst of such a system). The money received through tourism would continue to exist; a republic would preserve these heritage sites without being forced to fund an archaic institution. Moreover, the principle of monarch is outdated; elected officials can be voted out, but the monarch can’t be. In today’s world, authority should be derived from the voters, not birth.

However, since we have the system and it offers us a blend of democracy and tradition, there is no reason yet to get rid of it.

And in the end, constitutional change carries risks. If we abolish the monarchy, we are going to have to spend a lot of money and time restructuring our legal and political frameworks. We don’t have a written constitution; many aspects of governance are intertwined with the Crown, and we will be faced with complex questions about power and legitimacy. And there is no guarantee that an alternative system will be more efficient, less expensive, or less controversial.