Copyright newstatesman
Back in 2005, while still a human rights lawyer, Keir Starmer told a documentary: “I got made a Queen’s Counsel, which is odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy”. Starmer abandoned his youthful republicanism long ago – the past tense was the clue in that line – and today sits in the pro-monarchy tradition of Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Clement Attlee (who argued that there is “far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle”). Indeed, one of the mostly unwritten stories of Labour’s first year in office is how smooth the relationship between No 10 and the palace has been. As the global order fractures around them, Starmer and King Charles, who continued to meet weekly throughout the latter’s cancer treatment, have developed a warm relationship. But the case of Prince Andrew has revived the debate that Starmer alluded to two decades ago: when, if ever, should the monarchy be above politics? Last week, in advance of the publication of Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, Andrew agreed to give up the use of titles such as the Duke of York. But this is far from the end of the matter. “People are fuming, including monarchists,” says one Labour MP of the public mood. Only parliament can formally strip the prince of his titles, something that the SNP, never slow to exploit constitutional tensions, has now proposed. “The only real question is, what is Keir Starmer’s government waiting for?” declared the party’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn. “The public knows this is the right thing to do, and even more importantly the victims at the heart of the Epstein scandal know that it’s the right thing to do.” Then there is Andrew’s continued residence at Royal Lodge, the grade II-listed, 30-room Windsor mansion where he has lived rent-free for two decades. Robert Jenrick, in his newly populist guise, went beyond the Conservative line yesterday, contending that it’s “about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private” and “I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all”. No 10 has so far maintained that Andrew’s living arrangements are not for it to determine but some Labour ministers privately believe Starmer should intervene. “The royals serve the public, if they’re not serving them they should be held accountable,” one tells me. Downing Street’s caution is understandable. While a YouGov poll shows that 80 per cent of voters favour stripping Andrew of his titles, it also finds that only 26 per cent believe this is a matter for parliament rather than the palace. But as public antipathy to Andrew intensifies – the prince now rivals the likes of Vladimir Putin for unpopularity – indifference may become unsustainable. By signalling that Andrew should agree to leave Royal Lodge, Starmer has a chance to align himself with the country’s mood. In recent months we’ve heard talk once more of “insurgent government”; now might be a good time for it. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here. [Further reading: Inside Reeves’ Budget battle lines]
