The royal family: what is ‘duty’?
The recent controversy surrounding Prince Andrew’s affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein and sexual assault allegations has evoked debate on royal duty.
Source: BBC News/PA MEDIA
A few days ago, Prince Andrew settled his sexual assault civil case in the United States. However, in early January, the Queen removed his military affiliations and royal patronages. With the premiership of Boris Johnson looking increasingly insecure, such removal of Prince Andrew’s titles comes at a period defined by the ruptures of elitist authority.
Prince Andrew was first accused of sexual misconduct in December 2014. He was alleged to have been one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with a minor, later identified as Virginia Giuffre, who was allegedly trafficked for sex by Jeffrey Epstein. Since this initial accusation, various documentaries, articles and news stories have investigated Prince Andrew’s friendship with Epstein. In an interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight, he admitted that he did not regret this friendship with Epstein, remarking that “the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given … were actually very useful.”
Maitlis’ poised questions allowed Prince Andrew to talk his way into seeming even more guilty. His famous claim that Giuffre’s testimony cannot have been correct since he has a condition in which he cannot sweat has been critiqued by dermatology experts. He also insisted he was at Pizza Express on the evening in question. Surely anyone who would have been in such an obscure Pizza Express would have remembered if a Duke walked through the front doors. These humorous claims were made worse. Andrew said he was ‘too honourable’ a man to reject offers of ‘hospitality’ from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. At the least, Prince Andrew is guilty of ‘standing by’; at the most, he’s guilty of abusing his position to the highest and most disgusting degree.
Public attitudes towards the royal family have fluctuated throughout the years. Often, justifications for departure from the royal family have aroused much criticism. Diana, for example, was not always regarded as highly as she stands in public opinion today. In her controversial 1995 interview with Martin Bashir, she stated that she “felt that [her] personality was taken away from” upon marriage to Charles, and was “taken over by the royal machine”. For a public fond of their monarchy, such statements were laced with controversy. Her struggles with bulimia were met with an unsympathetic insistence that she complete her royal engagements, whilst her desire to pursue humanitarian endeavours was viewed as antithetical to the out-of-touch framework that gave her such power to do so.
However, as time wanes on, there’s been a re-popularisation of Princess Diana, from the Netflix show The Crown, Kristen Stewart’s rendition in Spencer, and swathes of new documentaries that have caused many to revisit her charitable endeavours. She was presented as ‘the People’s Princess’ by one side of the ‘Diana’ debate for a reason. She used her influence to challenge the stigma of HIV and AIDS by opening the UK’s first HIV unit. In the enduring image of her shaking hands with an AIDS patient, she has been remembered by her kindness and lasting impact on those who suffer not only with AIDS, but the stigma associated with it. This repopularisation has served to create a dichotomy in media receptions of the royal family: those in touch and those entirely out of touch - made starkly obvious when taking a closer look at the comparisons drawn between Diana and Meghan Markle.
Meghan Markle’s activism and her battle with critics have points of comparison with Diana, yet with different public receptions. Despite Meghan’s emphatic efforts in Rwanda to improve access to clean water, help girls who start their periods, and ensure that young girls feel safe attending school, her activism is largely ignored. Markle’s reception into the royal family was also undoubtedly cold, constituting part of the reason for her and Harry’s departure. In their infamous interview with Oprah, Harry and Meghan were candid in the admission that some unnamed individuals had reservations about the idea of welcoming a biracial child into the royal family.
Despite this shocking revelation, public opinion towards her continues to grow colder. Meghan’s YouGov popularity rests at a meek 26%, above only the disgraced Prince Andrew at 12%. Arguments against her posit that she is ‘insufferable’ and ‘thin-skinned.’ Perhaps Meghan’s status as just above Prince Andrew in popularity is a testament to the power of memory in Princess Diana. An aspect of Meghan’s unpopularity in comparison to Princess Diana’s intense popularity must be a desire to conceive of the latter as ‘special’ in historical memory. Whilst this is an argument for another day, what is certain about Harry and Meghan’s departure was its portrayal as an escape from ‘duty’.
But, what is ‘duty’ for the royal family? So many iterations seem to answer that such a question begs to be abandoned. Perhaps ‘duty’ means to call out your former relatives for being emotionless as Princess Diana did, or cold in Meghan’s case. Or ‘duty’ is to offer as much aid to those in need as your royal position allows. Prince Andrew, who has only been marginally less scrutinised as Meghan, conceives of duty in an entirely different way. He speaks of himself as a man ‘too honourable’ and reminds the public of his war efforts in Vietnam. Such calls to masculinised and antiquarian concepts of quasi-chivalry serve as a not-so-subtle attempt to prioritise the image of the royal family rather than admitting his failure to do better.
Conceptions of royal ‘duty’ are now evolving. Prince Charles’ proposal of a slimmed down monarchy that gained popularity in October 2021 may be the solution to an antiquated institution that requires modernisation. Going as far as Republicanism, a debate that Jacob Rees-Mogg has recently initiated once again in Britain, would negate potentially crucial charitable work done by members of the royal family who do not buy into traditionalism. But influence is a double-edged sword. It requires using it for good and intervening when the exploitation of influence has gone too far, which Prince Andrew, despite his financial settlement, has failed to do himself in the court of public opinion.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL, or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, please get in touch via email – uclpiopinion@gmail.com.