The King acted with decisive authority to strip his brother, Andrew, of his Royal title and evict him from his Windsor mansion. The former Duke of York is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and he must vacate Royal Lodge for private accommodation at Sandringham. No formal Letters Patent were issued, nor was parliamentary legislation required; the King’s prerogative sufficed. The action, though severe, reflects a man whose associations – never proven criminal – had become untenable for an institution whose legitimacy rests on public trust.
Andrew Windsor’s punishment was just and proportionate. The Sussexes’ case is more complex
Yet another challenge persists: the conduct of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry and Meghan, having stepped back from royal duties in 2020, agreed when they left the family to forgo commercial use of the style ‘HRH’ and the brand ‘Sussex Royal’. They retain their ducal titles, but the late Queen’s directive was unequivocal: royal status must not be commodified.
Their subsequent ventures – Netflix’s Harry & Meghan series, Spotify’s Archetypes podcast, and Harry’s memoir Spare – have leaned heavily on their Sussex identities for marketing and profit. While they do not use ‘HRH’ commercially, the persistent invocation of ‘Duke and Duchess’ on platforms such as sussex.com and in media deals, skirts the spirit of the agreement. The boundary between public duty and private gain has been eroded.
The contrast with Andrew is instructive. His scandals were excruciating, but born of poor judgement and settled civilly without admission of liability. The Sussexes’ output, by contrast, is active and deliberate: a sustained public narrative of grievance, broadcast globally for substantial financial reward. The Oprah interview, Netflix documentary, and Spare detail family tensions, media pressures, and institutional shortcomings. Whether framed as transparency or self-promotion, the content has undeniably damaged the Royal Family.
Stripping Andrew of his princely style was within the King’s gift; removing a peerage such as Duke of Sussex, however, requires an act of parliament. Precedent exists in the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, which stripped enemy peers during the First World War, but no such mechanism has been invoked in modern times for disloyalty alone. The government has signalled no appetite for legislation targeting the Sussexes, and constitutional experts say that their titles, unlike Andrew’s HRH, are hereditary and protected by law. Revoking them would demand cross-party consensus and risk politicising the monarchy – a step even republican-leaning Labour MPs have declined to pursue.
Still, the King retains levers short of statute. He could further restrict the Sussexes’ access to royal platforms, clarify succession protocols to minimise their Counsellor of State roles, or issue guidance limiting commercial use of titles in official contexts. Andrew’s demotion required no public vote; future clarifications of royal branding could follow the same sovereign path.
The monarchy’s endurance hinges on reputation, trust, and adaptability, not sentiment. The King and the Prince of Wales have rightly prioritised institutional integrity over familial loyalty, as evidenced by Andrew’s swift marginalisation. The Sussexes’ continued prominence – sustained by titles they no longer serve – tests that resolve. Their defenders argue that free speech and financial independence justify their path; monarchists counter that duty, once accepted, carries lifelong restraint. Both positions hold merit, but the Crown cannot indefinitely tolerate the assaults of its honours by those who critique it from afar.
Andrew’s punishment was just and proportionate. The Sussexes’ case is more complex – not criminal, not passive, but a calculated divergence from the late Queen’s vision. Equity does not demand identical treatment, but it does require consistency. Why should quitters who work in the service of nothing and no one but themselves enjoy these honours that are gifts from the nation they left behind and traduced? If the King or his heir wish to fortify the monarchy against future division, they must address the Sussex anomaly with the same clarity applied to Andrew. Not through parliamentary theatre, but through quiet, sovereign authority – reaffirming that the Crown’s prestige is not a private franchise.
The line has been drawn. The institution that has united Britain through centuries of trial now demands that all who bear its titles uphold its purpose – or step fully beyond its shadow. Duty must prevail over disloyalty, restraint over self-promotion. In that balance lies the monarchy’s future, and Britain’s quiet strength.
Comments