2.2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
In a dramatic move last week, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, became simply Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – a private citizen. There can be fewer more notable falls from grace in modern history. A question that arises from it is whether parliamentary pressure had an impact on the decision of King Charles III to remove his younger brother from the peerage.
Traditionally, discussion of the Royal Family has been off limits in the House of Commons. This convention is even codified in Erskine May – first published in 1844 and now in its 25th edition – which is regarded as the ‘bible’ of parliamentary practice.
The recent revelations about Andrew however, invited parliamentary scrutiny: first, it has emerged that he remained in contact with Jeffrey Epstein for several months longer than he had previously claimed, and, secondly, questions were raised about Andrew’s living arrangements. He currently occupies Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion on the Windsor Estate, which he has leased since 2003 for a so-called ‘peppercorn rent’ — a nominal payment that is far below market value. The decision was taken on Thursday last week, however, to remove Andrew from that lease. Instead, he will move to the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk. Importantly, this is an estate owned independently by the King, it is not part of the Crown Estate.
Last week, two parliamentary mechanisms – a Private Member’s Bill and a proposed Opposition Day Debate – tested the boundaries of traditional conventions. Firstly, Rachael Maskell, the Independent MP for York, introduced the Removal of Titles Bill, a Private Member’s Bill that would empower (and effectively require) the Monarch to remove an individual’s title when advised to do so by a Joint Committee of Parliament. As the MP for York – where Andrew, until Thursday, retained the Dukedom, albeit in a diminished capacity – Maskell argued she had a duty to bring the issue before Parliament.
Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) seldom become law unless they are introduced by MPs who have won a place in the annual ballot, as government time for such bills is extremely limited. Notably, Maskell introduced a near-identical bill in 2022, which failed to reach Second Reading. However, amid growing public and parliamentary frustration regarding Andrew, preventing this new bill from progressing would have been politically risky. It may given the impression that the government was shielding a disgraced public figure, thereby provoking backlash both within Parliament and among the public.
Secondly, Liberal Democrat Leader, Ed Davy, indicated he have used his parties Opposition Day time to hold a debate on Prince Andrew. This is clearly something the King would have been desperate to avoid.
At a time of a cost-of-living crisis, ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East and domestic political turbulence, King Charles will have very wary of the fact that any debate about Andrew taking time away from these issues, would have been a public relations nightmare for the Monarchy. It may have influenced his decision to act in such a decisive way.