‘The monarchy needs to be slimmed down’: Readers debate the Royal Family’s future as Andrew is stripped of ‘prince’ title

Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more

Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more

Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more

King Charles’s decision to strip Andrew of his ‘prince’ title and evict him from the Royal Lodge has reignited debate over the future of the monarchy.

Many Independent readers say the scandal should trigger something bigger: a reckoning with the institution’s role and purpose in modern Britain.

Several argued that while Andrew’s removal from royal life was long overdue, the deeper issue lies in the institution that allowed such privilege and protections to persist.

Others questioned why Crown Estate properties are leased to royals on “grace and favour” terms, insisting they should be treated as public assets with transparent rents and oversight.

Some said this moment should mark the beginning of a “massively slimmed-down monarchy”, with full financial disclosure and clear separation between state and royal wealth.

A handful of readers defended the monarchy’s symbolic and economic value, pointing to its role in stability and tourism, but even they acknowledged the need for reform and transparency.

Here’s what you had to say:

Do we really need a large family of unelected people?

Prince Andrew’s behaviour provides us with an excellent opportunity to look into the monarchy. Do we really need a large family of unelected people without powers to perform masquerades and pantomimes like the Order of Bath and the Order of the Garter pageants?

HASTINGSPIER

Privileged but purposeless

Part of the problem for both Andrew and Harry is that they have privilege but are publicly surplus to requirements and without the real freedom to make their own way in life.

YetAnotherName

Complete transparency

It’s obscene to have a group of royals be so entitled and beyond debate when you have ‘their subjects’ at the other end of the scale hungry and without.

(By the way I strongly object to being a ‘subject’. How rude and entitled are they to continue with this outdated name for English people who actually allow and pay for their grand lifestyles?)

The Royals came into this world in exactly the same way we all did but happened to find their parents to be ‘royal’. None of them have earned what they have been given! There should be complete transparency about all their finances and their behaviour in Parliament. Only then can we have a true opinion on whether they are assets to this country or draining it for their own pleasure and gain.

SallyOrdinary

Slimmed down

All that is needed is a Head of State. The British monarchy needs to be slimmed down and all revenues made transparent.

Spyderbite

How do we change a constitutional monarchy?

The pertinent question is how do we change or remove a constitutional monarchy and maintain a fair and stable society? I suspect it might be very difficult to achieve, although I am in principle in favour of reform to the aristocracy.

Poulter

A total waste of public money

Abolish the monarchy – a total waste of public money. Make them pay taxes and inheritance tax and dilute the greedy cabal of spongers.

Must have a second referendum

None at all

What about the many other Royals fed and watered at the taxpayer’s expense?

What about the details of how the Royals are funded in full? At the very least, we need a massively slimmed-down institution – better still, none at all.

Paddly

Smoke and mirrors

You either support the idea of a royal family, who are pre-destined by birth to be rich, powerful and at the top of society simply by virtue of who was their mum – or you don’t.

If you do support a Royal Family, then the secrecy, the opaque exercise of power and influence and the deliberate financial obfuscation come with the territory. It’s a bit like wanting a Royal Family but drawing the line at them having a palace to live in.

It comes as a package, including the black sheep like Andrew. Or you can abolish the whole lot, open the castles and palaces to tourists and elect a figurehead president like they do in, say, Ireland.

The problem is not Prince Andrew. The problem is royalty. Andrew is merely a symptom.

The Royal Lodge fiasco underlines a much wider problem. The Crown Estates belong to the state. Though they are referred to as ‘held in trust for the crown’, they are not the personal property of the King; they were surrendered by a previous monarch in return for an allowance as he couldn’t meet his obligations. The monarch gets ‘paid’ an amount equivalent to a percentage of the profits. The rest is state income.

So why are royal family members given leases on Crown property on a ‘grace and favour’ basis granted by the monarch? It is the fiduciary duty of the trustees to obtain proper rents for them, whoever occupies them.

One more cost of the monarchy hidden by smoke and mirrors.

Parliament must tell the Royal Family the time of grace and favour homes is over. If any member of the family wants another house from the Crown Estates (and that includes Wills and Kate) they need to pay a commercial rent and comply with a commercial lease.

How about we change the name to the National Estates to make it clear it is not theirs to do as they wish with.

nocomment

All royal family assets should revert to the state

The British taxpayer has for centuries maintained the royal family’s assets. So if the monarchy abdicates or otherwise takes a major back-seat shift, then all the royal family assets revert to the state and National Trust control. They’re simply not the royal family’s to dispose of – they’re ours.

It might be that the NT needs a government maintenance grant for a few years as a tiding-over, since they would suddenly double the size of their portfolio, but that could be accommodated.

Bradbyrn

No incentive to change the status quo

One of the greatest protections that the UK monarchy has is the lack of a proper, explicit written constitution, allied with Parliament being the proxy for the Crown.

Parliament is “sovereign” in matters relating to creation, dismemberment or expungement of laws, but it is well known that all proposed laws that may affect the monarchy are firstly passed to the monarch for perusal and appropriate discreet suggestions for amendment.

None of the parties responsible for governing the UK have any incentive to do anything other than maintain the status quo.

Nobrandloyalty

The monarchy provides stability

How much income does the UK receive from tourism encouraged greatly by our monarchy? The monarchy provides a benign vacuum at the summit of our national hierarchy. Look at what is happening at the summit of the national hierarchy of the USA. Is that a monarchy?

For all its faults, the UK is a stable society. That cannot be said of most nations around the world, many of which are ruled by dictators who acquired their status by overthrowing their predecessors.

Remember how the Commonwealth republic collapsed in 1660 – it had only been running for ten years. King Charles II was hastily returned home to fill the vacuum and restore stability.

Puggers

Please?

Can we now finally dispose of the anachronistic institution of monarchy and nobility, and begin to develop a just and transparent political system? Please?

Catch55

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.

SOURCE PAGE