Great news for residents of streets like Prince Andrew Drive and Prince Andrew Way, who have been asking their local councils to change these names to distance themselves from the disgraced royal. Thanks to the king’s historic decision last night, these small British roads have regained their dignity. (Though if you live on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Close, you have my sympathy.) But has this restored the dignity of the British monarchy itself? I don’t think so. In fact, it’s made things worse.
The royal family’s recent troubles haven’t come from outside forces—no invasions, rival claimants, or parliamentary revolts. Their biggest crises over the past few decades have been self-inflicted: marital problems, financial issues, health scares, and near-criminal behavior. The royal family is its own worst enemy. The problems aren’t happening to them; they’re causing them. The threat is coming from inside the palace.
I’ve been reporting on Prince Andrew’s story for over ten years, and it should be obvious that he’s a thoroughly unpleasant and foolish disgrace. But in my view, this latest crisis is the most dangerous kind for the monarchy: it’s philosophical. Stripping Andrew of his royal status hasn’t secured the monarchy’s future—it has actually brought its end closer in the grand scheme of things. I can’t say exactly when that end will come, but it’s exciting to write a column that will only be proven right or wrong long after I’m gone. Tony Blair must feel the same whenever he claims history will vindicate his decision on the Iraq War.
Here’s the point: when the royal family eventually disappears, analysts will look back at Andrew’s forced removal as a key moment. Not the key moment—that was the abdication of 1936. Forgive the reference, but that was when the Windsors opened the gate. Once they started suggesting that people could be fired from what is essentially the world’s most rigid non-meritocracy—stripped of their royal status—they dangerously tampered with the very idea of royalty. You might think the concept of royalty is silly, but that’s what it is. They’re not just another wealthy family; they’re supposed to be special, almost otherworldly, and above personnel issues. They shouldn’t be stepping out of their realm—literally “the realm”—and into the ordinary world of performance reviews and mandatory training. Though that would make for a hilarious comedy sketch.
Throughout history, the British royal family has sheltered plenty of awful relatives. In the old days, you could just poison a troublesome brother, but after the 17th century, exile was the solution because completely removing someone’s royal status undermined the very idea of being born into royalty. The British dukes who lost their titles for siding with Germany in World War I were distant figures. Andrew, however, remains eighth in line to the throne.
So yes, the abdication opened the gate. Since then, and from now on, it’s been a game of whack-a-mole. Every crisis will lead more people to ask why they can’t just get rid of whoever is causing trouble at the time. And why not? They got rid of one; the precedent is set. I believe the late Queen Elizabeth realized this and knew that to avoid making things worse, she had to remain queen until her last breath. Don’t forget that for a long time, people have been…Some people seriously suggested that the crown should bypass the then-unpopular Charles and go straight to William. Later, there were calls for Elizabeth to abdicate in favor of Charles after her decades of impeccable service, as if she deserved retirement—treating the monarchy like some absurd “firm” they claim it is.
But it isn’t. It’s not a business, a small-to-medium enterprise, or a place where you handpick family members for top roles. They’re not the Murdochs. When it comes to the long-term stewardship they’re tasked with, philosophically, you have to accept the hand you’re dealt. Now that public pressure has forced the king to dismiss someone so close to home, it will be easier to demand the next change. The king won’t remain in his leading role for many more years. But William, the current HR director with a reputation for being tough, is a rather mediocre individual who will likely prove to be out of his depth as king. I wonder who or what he’ll cancel under his self-appointed role as the nation’s mental health guardian. I guess we’ll find out.
For what little it’s worth, I support having a royal family, mainly because they provide endless material and are arguably better than having someone like Peter Mandelson as head of state. (Just kidding—I know there are other options.) They add to the nation’s entertainment and gossip, fueling both admiration and disdain. It seems like a miserable existence for those involved, and certainly not one any sane person would want their children to marry into. I’ll never forget reports that Kate Middleton’s parents encouraged her to take a gap year and switch her university application to St Andrews once they knew Prince William would be there—all this after the tragic story of Princess Diana.
Speaking of tragedies, the law has decided not to investigate Andrew further regarding Virginia Giuffre’s allegations, with the FBI dropping its probe earlier this year. The king’s statement on stripping Andrew’s titles seemed to hint that he doesn’t fully believe his brother’s denials, so perhaps Charles’s actions are a form of symbolic justice to show that no one is above the law. Yet, the royal family is exempt from many laws, and this will only speed up the end of it all.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic With Andrew now dismissed from the Firm the country is left asking whos next in a natural conversational tone with direct answers
General Understanding The Situation
1 Who is Andrew and what Firm is this referring to
This is a hypothetical scenario Andrew represents a highprofile individual and the Firm represents the powerful organization or institution they were part of
2 What does whos next mean in this context
It means people are speculating about who else in the organization might be forced to resign be fired or face consequences following Andrews dismissal It suggests a period of instability and uncertainty
3 Why is Andrews dismissal such a big deal
Its a big deal because it often signals a major shift a scandal or a housecleaning within a powerful group It makes everyone question the security and integrity of others in similar positions
Causes and Motivations
4 What are the most common reasons someone like Andrew gets dismissed
Common reasons include ethical misconduct poor performance financial irregularities losing the confidence of leadership or being part of a broader strategic change
5 Is this just about one person or is there usually a bigger reason
While it starts with one person a highprofile dismissal often points to a larger issue within the organization such as a toxic culture systemic failures or a power struggle
6 Who typically makes the decision to dismiss someone at that level
The decision is usually made by a top authority figure like a Board of Directors a CEO a senior political leader or a special oversight committee
Consequences and Fallout
7 What usually happens to the Firm after a key person is let go
The organization often faces public scrutiny a drop in morale internal confusion and a period of restructuring as they try to manage the fallout and restore stability
8 How does this affect the other people working there
It creates anxiety and uncertainty Employees may worry about their own job security the companys future and possible changes in leadership and direction
9 Whats the impact on the public or customers
The public or customers may lose trust
