What Prince Andrew should have learned
National Post, 16 January 2022
It could be argued that the Queen's singular failure as a sovereign has been her children
Less than a month before her astonishing 70th anniversary on the throne, Queen Elizabeth confronted her most important — and arguably singular — failure as sovereign: the children.
It is often said of the Queen — one of the few real adults left amongst the current crop of global leaders — that she has never put a foot wrong. True enough. She was not successful though in teaching her children to follow in her steps. Indeed, where they chose to walk, as it were, is part of the problem.
Prince Andrew was effectively expelled from the public duties of the Royal Family, losing the use of the “HRH” — His Royal Highness — title, which matters a great deal more than one might think in matters royal. The Duke of Windsor (Edward VIII) went to his death bitter that the “HRH” was not extended to his wife, the Duchess of Windsor, after his abdication and marriage. In their own household, they insisted that she be called “Her Royal Highness.”
Andrew remains a prince, for his mother is the queen. But his royal patronages and military honours have been stripped; he will face a civil suit over sexual misconduct in New York as a “private citizen.”
The Queen spends Feb. 6 each year in quiet reflection, remembering the unexpected death of her father, George VI. In 1952 she was in Kenya on a royal visit, a princess representing the king. She flew home to London as queen, greeted at the airport by her first prime minister, Sir Winston Churchill.
She learned one lesson above all from her father, a lesson that has not only marked her praiseworthy seven-decade reign, but has left the House of Windsor as the only European monarchy with a significant role in national life and a voice in global affairs.
The lesson is that the monarchy is essential. The family in which it is embedded is not. The two are not entirely distinct of course, and getting the balance right is difficult, even wrenching.
Elizabeth, at age 10, watched her father send her “Uncle David” into exile after the abdication. Seventeen years later, he did not attend the coronation of his niece — the Windsors, as a couple, were not welcome to pollute the solemnization of the mission which they had rejected.
As queen, Elizabeth would repeatedly curtail, restrain and even marginalize members of the family as needed, beginning with her own sister, Princess Margaret. The temptation of a royal is to choose the indulgence permitted by great wealth and lofty station rather than the constraints which arise from duty. Much more pleasant to escape to a private tropical island than unveil a plaque in a corn exchange in the Midlands.
The key to appreciating Elizabeth’s dutiful fidelity is that, in 70 years as Queen, she has been to Moose Jaw more often than Manhattan. She goes where duty requires, and when duty does not require it, she doesn’t go.
How much grief would the Royal Family have been spared if Margaret, Charles and Diana, and Harry and Meghan had spent less time in Manhattan and similarly chic locales?
No one need shed a tear for those who must live at Buckingham Palace, or St. James, or Clarence House, or Sandringham or Balmoral. The royal residences are luxurious, perhaps even decadent. But they are dull.
Not just the palaces but the people. The Queen is obliged to receive people as soporific as Joe Biden and as superficial as Justin Trudeau; the lesser royals must put up with still lesser personages. It is neither a life of suffering nor onerous sacrifice, but it is a life of service. It is not glamourous. A quiet night at Windsor Castle is just that, a quiet night. There are no nightclubs.
Continue reading at the National Post.