HANDS up who knew Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was a wrong ‘un ages ago.
I don’t mean criminally guilty, incidentally. Just a fairly awful bloke in general. I think most of us did.
Arrogant and thick, a lethal combination. The little stories leaked out.
From him swanning around the world — Air Miles Andy and all that.
Turning up late then being rude and pompous to the foreign businessmen he was meeting.
His unswerving dedication and commitment to playing golf and topping up his tan.
And then that interview with Newsnight, where he came across as denser than a block of tungsten. And lacking any self-awareness whatsoever.
Oh, and his choice of life partner — that grasping ginger woman.
Why, you ask, have we been paying for these high and mighty spongers?
What good are they doing us, or the country?
And all of this we knew about long before the Epstein business came about.
The latest revelations — and Andrew’s arrest — will have shifted the dial among the public towards republicanism.
Andrew, of course, denies all accusations. But no matter what, more people will be thinking: time to get rid of this circus, once and for all.
Can’t blame them. I’ve always sat on the fence a little bit over the monarchy. But then, I think we all do.
Because the truth is we believe in the monarchy only when there’s someone decent on the throne. Our support for the monarchy is not absolute. It is contingent.
Contingent on whether they are behaving or not. Working for the country. Showing a degree of dignity. And a concern for their subjects.
And that’s why Elizabeth II was the perfect monarch (actually QEI wasn’t bad, either). And it was because she carried out her duties with such selflessness and commitment that we continue to be a monarchy.
Because, let’s face it, a monarchy is in truth a bloody weird idea.
We elevate these not especially bright people. And they are allowed to live in palaces and have millions of quid and technically rule the country.
Not because they are anything special, but because they are descendants of some German bint called Sophie who died two centuries ago, nearly.
Now, though we have Charlie upon the throne.
He would not have been my first choice — that would be Anne, the Princess Royal. And following Charles, William.
And right now, they have a bit to do to convince us that the monarchy is worth sticking with. Given that it has been lashed by scandal for the past 30 years.
So here’s what Charlie and then Wills should do.
First, slim down the whole thing. If you don’t do the work, you ain’t part of the club.
That means, for example, that the number five in line to the throne should be removed immediately. And the title Prince stripped from him.
Yep, that’s Harry. Get rid. Nobody wants that whining weasel anywhere near the throne, still less his ghastly missus.
We also need to know a little more about both the finances of the royals and their links with politicians.
For a start, in future, MPs should be allowed to question royal expenditure and royal appointments.
Did you know that when Andrew was appointed a trade envoy in 2001, a left-wing Labour MP asked a parliamentary question regarding how he’d been given the gig? Well, he did. And the Speaker of the House told him such questions were unparliamentary.
Because MPs are not allowed to cast aspersions on the Royal Family. Well, that’s got to stop. Right now. And incidentally, I’d STILL like to know who gave that job to the block of wood. I bet Mandelson was involved somewhere along the line.
Next, do you really need Buck House, Windsor, Kensington Palace, Hampton Court, Balmoral AND Holyroodhouse?
And all the other palaces and estates? The Duchy of Lancaster, St James’s Palace, Highgrove House and Hillsborough and many more besides? Couldn’t you just make do with say, three or four palaces? And bequest the rest to the nation.
Cut out the private jets, while we’re on with it. Reduce your carbon footprint, Charlie!
And perhaps make do with fewer staff. Do you really need 500? Are they all to make sure your egg is boiled properly?
Next, stop making dim-witted forays into politics, your royal highness.
Lecturing the country on Net Zero and climate change would be a bad idea even if you didn’t have a carbon footprint the size of several mammoths.
It’s never a good idea for very, very rich and privileged people to tell poor people to sacrifice half of their income to save the planet.
Doesn’t go down well. Keep it schtum, dudester.
Don’t “modernise”, as some people want. Keep the mystique and distance which the Royal Family needs. Just make sure we know how you are spending your money and allow us to question decisions you make.
And in general, take a leaf out of the Princess Royal’s book. Go about your business with a down-to-earth solemnity and commitment. Rise above the political fray. And be ruthless with those members of the family who are, to use the kind of language Anne herself might employ, taking the p*ss.
This is a crucial time for our monarchy. Probably the most crucial since 1648. And the public could go either way — Roundhead or Cavalier. And you Charlie — and one day you, William — are the only thing standing between this country and a presidency.
I don’t want a presidency. As I said last week, we’d probably elect some drongo like Sam Smith to the role. And there’s a certain amount of soft power in having a king. Just look at how tickled Donald Trump is whenever he gets an invitation to the Palace.
But the whole thing needs reform as well as a dignified hand on the tiller. Otherwise, you’ll find the public camped outside your many palaces, knitting and shouting “guillotine, guillotine!”.
HERO of the week is the female police officer who stood up for a Christian preacher in East London.
She politely explained to a group of angry Muslims who had gathered that if they didn’t like what they were hearing from the preacher, they could move on.
One protestor complained: “But this is a Muslim area!”
No, mate, it’s Great Britain – a country where we have freedom of speech.
Which is exactly what the police officer told him.
Again, in rather more polite language than I would have managed.
THE Government must raise defence spending to five per cent of GDP.
That’s the demand from three former defence chiefs and the former boss of MI6.
Without that level of spending, we don’t stand a hope if Russia decided to attack.
Trouble is, we’ve been saying this for ages. The Americans have been urging us to spend more, too.
But Keir Starmer struggles even to find 2.5 per cent of GDP to spend on our defence.
There’s too much money used up sending kids to school in taxis and paying benefits to people suffering from anxiety to worry about defending the country.
Let’s see how “anxious” those folks are when the Russkies arrive.
