Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

comment

Queen Elizabeth would be horrified by how far Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has fallen

There is no precedent whatsoever for the former prince's arrest, says the historian Hugo Vickers. Whatever the outcome, it is not going to end well

Video Player Placeholder
Police officers seen at gates of Royal Lodge as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested

Sixty-six years ago today the first Prince “born in the purple” arrived at Buckingham Palace, the first royal baby born to a reigning Queen since Princess Beatrice was born to Queen Victoria in 1857.

The Queen wrote to several people that he would no doubt be spoilt – as proved to be the case. For what it is worth, the usually acerbic and deeply critical Cecil Beaton described Prince Andrew in 1964 as “a boy with quality that shines out with his niceness, and goodness and good spirits … trained to behave well, to be polite, and amenable”.

Others did not share this view, but no doubt that was the boy the Queen recognised and remembered – mothers react to their sons differently from others – witness Margaret Thatcher and her son Mark.

The Queen believed in her son’s innocence to the end. She would have been horrified by the police’s arrival at Wood Farm. Mercifully, she is spared that.

However, during her reign and therefore on her watch, it is important to note that steps were taken to sideline the then Prince Andrew. He was asked to step down from public life after the Maitlis interview.

He did so and then, by and large, he remained silent. He spent time with children and grandchildren, and he rode in the park. I believe it is fair to say that few people in public life have been subjected to more public opprobrium than him. No one has fallen further in public life, except Jeremy Thorpe.

The King had made an attempt to include his brother (and his ex-wife) in private family events though not public ones (except the 2023 Coronation). When the King was heckled in the street, he immediately stripped his brother of all his titles and had him removed from Royal Lodge. Now, as the police put it “a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office”.

The King gives the process his “full and wholehearted support” and says “the law must take its course”. No one is above the law, except the Monarch himself.

There is no historic precedence for this. Of course, it is not unusual for members of the Royal Family to appear in court on speeding charges (Lord Snowdon and others in the past). Princess Anne was convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act in 2002 and fined £500 after her dogs bit two children in Windsor Great Park.

But Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not asked in for questioning. He was arrested and taken from his home in a convoy of police cars. This is, therefore, a far graver issue. It is worth noting that Lord Mandelson’s residences were searched, but he was not arrested.

It is not for me to question the way the law operates but I do wonder if Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor could ever get a fair trial (should it come to that), since the court of public opinion is so firmly against him. The media would most likely suggest an establishment cover-up if he were acquitted.

Historically, it is the blood members of the Royal Family who are penalised if they cause trouble. The Duke of Windsor was allowed to keep his royal titles and Orders after his abdication, though his wife’s title was restricted.

The Duke remained a Knight of the Garter. She was never made a Royal Highness to the annoyance of her husband. For high treason – therefore taking up arms against this country – Emperor Hirohito of Japan and King Victor Emmanuel were pushed out of the Garter. In the First World War, the Kaiser was one of eight foreign monarchs and princes who were similarly treated.

The Crown Prince of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland and Brunswick, son of the blind King of Hanover, was deprived of his British titles in 1919 as was Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg, deprived of the dukedom of Albany.

Both were by then German nationals though closely related to the British Royal Family (Charles Edward was a grandson of Queen Victoria). In a lesser way, the late Earl of Harewood, cousin to Queen Elizabeth II, was banned from court for about seven years, on account of his divorce from Marion Stein.

Whatever the outcome of this matter, it is not going to end well.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in