If he’s toxic, ma’am
But he identifies as royal; surely that’s all that’s required?
The Queen has removed a range of military affiliations and royal patronages held by Prince Andrew, Buckingham Palace has said. The move comes after a US judge gave the green light for her second son to face a sexual assault civil lawsuit.
Buckingham Palace said in a statement on Thursday: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”
The dramatic move comes hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”. The palace had said earlier on Thursday that it had no comment on their open letter.
It’s almost as if the whole system is archaic and impossible to justify. Why does he have a whole string of honorary military roles in the first place?
The veterans add in their letter, which was partly coordinated by the campaign group Republic: “Officers of the British armed forces must adhere to the very highest standards of probity, honesty and honourable conduct.
“These are standards which Prince Andrew has fallen well short of. It is hard not to see, when senior officers are reportedly describing him as ‘toxic’, that he has brought the services he is associated with into disrepute.
“We are therefore asking that you take immediate steps to strip Prince Andrew of all his military ranks and titles and, if necessary, that he be dishonourably discharged.”
Now that would be interesting.
OR, that Andrew be promoted to hold the rank of Knight Commander of the Royal Shitpot. IMHO it works just as well. Perhaps even ‘Lord’ rather than mere ‘Knight.’
It’s for military ceremonial, since the Royal Family’s job description these days is supporting charities and civil and military ceremonial (and attracting rich American tourists).
Thus the Commander in Chief of the British Army, who inspects the troops, is the Queen (not the PM), and other royals play similar roles.
There are advantages, compared to the US, in Britain’s tradition of trying to keep some things as non-political (e.g. national ceremonial, the supreme court, election regulations and districting).
Possibly, but it could be done in a much less expensive and pompous way like the scaled-down royals of Norway & Sweden & the Netherlands.
#1 That would be a bad idea, because Knight Commander of the Royal Shitpot aka Groom of the Stool was/is quite a powerful position.
Kristjan
I should imagine the Groom would have been well placed to stab the king in the arras, thereby changing the course of history. No wonder they did away with the position.