Copyright theage
The British were divided on how Charles was responding to this scandal. Had he done enough? When polling firm YouGov asked 4223 adults their views this week, 40 per cent said he was handling it well. Another 32 per cent said he was handling it badly, while the rest were unsure. This was a response to the moves on October 17 – and before the dramatic changes on Thursday night. Given those results, the public will probably welcome the new and very concrete changes to Andrew’s position. The prince was already toxic: in August, before the latest revelations, YouGov found that 67 per cent of people backed the idea of removing his titles. There were suspicions, also, that more would emerge about Andrew’s connections to foreign investors, including some who were being described as Chinese spies. Andrew Lownie, the author of a new and damning biography of the former prince – Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York – was convinced that Andrew’s business dealings would be his undoing. There was always a moral case for action by the King to protect the monarchy. Laura Clancy, a lecturer at Lancaster University and a researcher on the cultural politics of the monarchy, said this week that the public expected the royal family to uphold a standard of behaviour. Clancy is the author of What is the Monarchy For? published by Bristol University Press earlier this year. “For many years, the monarchy seems to have tried to shield Andrew from public view,” she said. “But the latest claims, and the extent of public feeling about them, mean the monarchy knows it has to act and do more.” Days later, it did exactly that. There may still be a case for the King to go further. “The King could speak out and acknowledge the concerns of the public around his brother’s friendship with Epstein, at the very least, and acknowledge it was ill-advised,” Anna Whitelock, a professor of the history of modern monarchy at City St George’s, University of London, said. She put her view to this masthead before Buckingham Palace issued the dramatic decisions at the end of the week. She made a prescient point about the King: “He could also focus attention on the victims.” The statement from the palace sought do to this, albeit only in a few words. Who knows if Charles or Camilla will ever say more? The King had to act. The symbolic changes two weeks ago were seen as adequate – and the damage to the monarchy would continue if the public could not trust the King to understand the need for substantial change. This was a family scandal that reflected on the House of Windsor. It was not a task for the government or the parliament. It was for the head of the family to fix. And he has fixed it in the most dramatic way, sending his brother into exile. Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
