Marina Hyde’s recent piece on Prince Andrew and the British monarchy raises an uncomfortable but necessary question. If the royal family is built on birthright, not achievement, why do people still expect meritocratic standards to apply? Her blunt observation that “you get the royal family you didn’t vote for” captures the entire paradox of modern monarchy. It also explains why the scandal surrounding Prince Andrew refuses to go away.
 |
| Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew attend the requiem mass for the Duchess of Kent at Westminster Cathedral, 16 September 2025. Photograph: Toby Melville |
The royal institution is based on inheritance. You are born into it, not chosen by it. There are no performance reviews or democratic checks. The British public does not select its monarch or decide which royal deserves privilege. Yet, the royal family continues to occupy the highest symbolic office in a democracy that prides itself on equality and fairness. This tension between tradition and accountability lies at the heart of the debate about what should be done with Prince Andrew.
If the monarchy were just another public institution, the question would be simple. Misconduct or reputational damage would lead to removal, resignation, or formal investigation. But the monarchy is not like that. Its authority comes from heritage, not competence. It is not a job you can be fired from. It is an inheritance protected by history, ceremony, and sentiment. That is why Prince Andrew remains both a personal scandal and a constitutional headache.
Prince Andrew, the Royal Liability
Prince Andrew’s troubles are well known. His friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, has cast a long shadow over him. The now-famous photograph taken at Ghislaine Maxwell’s London home showed him smiling beside a young woman who later accused him of abuse. Although Andrew has denied all allegations, his credibility collapsed after his disastrous 2019 BBC interview. His tone-deaf performance, filled with contradictions and evasions, turned public opinion sharply against him.
For many observers, that interview became the point of no return. It was not just what he said, but the way he said it. He appeared detached, unremorseful, and astonishingly unaware of how his words sounded outside the royal bubble. Since then, his public role has steadily diminished. He lost honorary military titles, was forced to step back from royal duties, and was excluded from many public events. Yet, despite these symbolic punishments, he remains a prince of the realm. He keeps his residence, his privileges, and his proximity to royal influence.
This half-measure approach leaves both sides unsatisfied. To his defenders, he has been unfairly punished before any criminal conviction. To his critics, he has escaped genuine accountability. The monarchy’s cautious handling of the situation suggests a deeper fear. If they remove him completely, they risk admitting that a royal can be unfit for royal life. And if they keep him, they risk confirming that the monarchy is incapable of cleaning its own house.
The Illusion of Soft Sanctions
The so-called punishments given to Prince Andrew are more ceremonial than real. Losing a few titles or being banned from certain events does little to address public outrage. He has not faced legal trial, and the monarchy has not demanded a full investigation. The institution appears more interested in damage control than justice.
The reality is that the monarchy has no effective disciplinary mechanism. It can suspend or sideline a royal, but it cannot truly remove one without creating a constitutional storm. Stripping Andrew of his titles or excluding him entirely would raise an uncomfortable precedent. It would invite questions about why one royal can be punished and others cannot. And it would force the monarchy to admit that hereditary privilege does not guarantee moral integrity.
That is why these symbolic acts—taking away titles, cancelling appearances, erasing him from official portraits—are meant to look decisive while avoiding real confrontation. But this approach is short-sighted. It allows the problem to linger, poisoning the institution from within. The monarchy cannot afford endless half-gestures when the public mood is shifting toward accountability and transparency.
A Fragile Contract Between Crown and People
The British monarchy has always rested on a kind of social contract. The people accept the existence of a royal family because they see it as part of national identity, continuity, and tradition. In return, the royal family is expected to embody dignity, duty, and restraint. When that moral balance breaks down, the entire arrangement becomes unstable.
In past generations, royal scandals could be managed quietly. Newspapers would suppress stories, and the public would move on. But today’s world is unforgiving. Social media amplifies every rumor, every inconsistency, and every sign of hypocrisy. A prince who once lived under the protective shield of palace secrecy now lives under the harsh glare of public scrutiny.
The monarchy’s defenders argue that the institution should not be judged by the failures of one man. But the truth is that every royal’s behavior reflects on the Crown. The monarchy depends on collective reputation, not individual brilliance. When one member disgraces that image, the damage spreads across the family. The longer the institution hesitates to act, the more it risks being seen as complicit.
Reform or Decline
The British monarchy now faces a clear choice. It can modernize and adopt real standards of accountability, or it can continue clinging to the illusion that birthright equals virtue. To survive in a democratic age, it must show that its privileges come with responsibility, not immunity.
Real reform would mean more than press releases and quiet withdrawals. It would involve transparency about finances, clear codes of conduct, and credible systems of discipline. Royals should be held to at least the same moral and legal standards as the citizens they represent. If a member of the royal family is accused of serious wrongdoing, there should be an independent mechanism to investigate, not an internal palace negotiation.
This does not necessarily mean abolishing the monarchy. Many countries maintain symbolic royal institutions that coexist with democracy. But they do so by earning trust through integrity, restraint, and openness. If the British monarchy continues to protect its own at the expense of moral consistency, public faith will erode beyond repair.
The Myth of the Untouchable
Prince Andrew’s saga exposes a deeper illusion within the royal system, the myth of untouchability. For centuries, royalty has survived on a delicate blend of mystique and deference. People accept it because it seems distant, dignified, and above ordinary politics. But when a royal is caught behaving like an unaccountable celebrity rather than a public servant, that illusion collapses.
Andrew’s defenders sometimes argue that he is a victim of media persecution. Yet, public frustration is not born from gossip but from a clear double standard. Ordinary citizens who faced similar allegations would face far harsher consequences. The notion that a man can keep royal privilege while being publicly disgraced is impossible to reconcile with modern ideas of fairness.
The monarchy cannot afford to shelter its members behind tradition forever. Doing so transforms sympathy into resentment. The British people have tolerated many royal missteps, but patience is running thin. A new generation sees privilege without responsibility as a moral failure, not a birthright.
The Future of Royal Accountability
If the monarchy is to endure, it must evolve. It should no longer rely on secrecy, ritual, and silence as shields. Instead, it should build credibility through transparency, ethical discipline, and public service. The public does not expect perfection, but it does expect honesty.
Prince Andrew’s continued presence in royal circles, even in the shadows, undermines that expectation. Every time he appears at a family gathering or public ceremony, it reminds people of unresolved questions and unearned privilege. His situation is not only a personal disgrace; it is a test of the monarchy’s ability to reform itself.
The royal family has long argued that it stands for continuity. But continuity without integrity is not strength, it is stagnation. To restore faith, the monarchy must be willing to prove that its values are greater than any individual scandal. That means setting boundaries that even princes cannot cross.
Conclusion: The Uncomfortable Truth here
The British monarchy is built on contradiction. It celebrates merit while embodying inequality. It demands respect while resisting scrutiny. And it claims to serve the public while existing beyond the reach of democratic accountability. The story of Prince Andrew is not just about one man’s downfall. It is a mirror reflecting the monarchy’s own limits.
If the institution cannot discipline its own members with fairness and transparency, then it has no moral authority left to claim. The future of the monarchy will not be decided by ceremony or nostalgia but by credibility. The people of Britain, whether royalists or republicans, deserve a Crown that stands for integrity, not immunity.
Until that happens, Marina Hyde’s words will continue to ring true. In a system built on inheritance, not merit, you really do get the royal family you did not vote for.
by sunday unekwuojo