1 hour ago
3
Simon Jenkins says that, apart from two fines paid by Princess Anne (one for an uncontrolled dog, the other for speeding), researchers into royal quarrels with the law have to go back to Charles I and Mary, Queen of Scots (Stripped of finery, detained by police as an ordinary citizen: now Andrew enters a new era – and Britain too, 19 February).
Leaving aside less serious brushes with law, often over property rights, there are two cases of major legal significance that he fails to note – in neither were the consequences confined within the British Isles.
First, in 1685, James Scott, the first Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch, the illegitimate son of Charles II, claimed the British thrones and led an unsuccessful rebellion against his uncle King James II. After defeat at the battle of Sedgemoor, Monmouth was tried and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. James II spared his nephew from this awful fate. However, the executioner Jack Ketch took more than five strokes of the axe to carry out a less barbaric death sentence of beheading.
Second, in 1688, Monmouth’s half-sister Mary and her husband, William III, led a successful challenge to the law of the land, and a less bloody coup. Some historians, notably those in the US, regard this “glorious revolution” as a foundational event of our modern world.
Peter Wardley
Bristol
Aside from the execution of Charles I, the other cases you list in your article were minor offences (A beheaded tyrant and reckless drivers: a history of royal run-ins with the law, 19 February). You failed to mention a case that didn’t go to court as, had it involved anyone other than a member of the royal family, the offender would have been hanged.
In 1945, the Marburg files were discovered hidden in a forest in the Harz mountains by Nazis. The files implicated the then Duke of Windsor in collaboration with Nazi Germany in the second world war. Winston Churchill moved to have these files locked away for fear of the damage it could have on the monarchy. One telegram stated: “Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing will make England ready for peace.”
King George VI was made aware of these files in 1953. Had the duke been investigated and the files found to be authentic, he should have been tried for treason, which carried a death sentence. The files, however, were locked away and the duke’s alleged treachery covered up. He and his wife continued to live in lap of luxury in Paris until his death in 1972.
Tom Moore
Newcastle upon Tyne
Simon Jenkins writes what is now becoming obvious. When you are entitled from birth to all that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed, not surprisingly you expect the world to sustain you in the same manner. Sex, glamour, prestige, membership of an American royalty (all of it phoney, but you are not to know) are of course what you are entitled to assume are yours.
The corruption started at birth and was sustained by our fine and noble traditions. It is a salutary lesson for our whole society, and brings us to contemplate how a good society might be envisioned.
Agama Cunningham
Dulwich, London
Simon Jenkins rightly argues that enlarging the royal family was “grossly unfair in the pressure it put on the individuals involved”. It has indeed been painful to watch their struggles with extremes of both privilege and pointlessness. Yet in any family, over the generations there will be a few reprobates. An inevitable consequence of monarchy is occasional disaster, and widening the family firm merely increases the risk. Alternative governance arrangements are available.
Chris Edwards
Winchester
Royal succession is based on an antiquated system of inherited privilege and entitlement, which Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor fits neatly into. It has no moral basis, so there are no grounds for removing him from the line of succession just because he has behaved appallingly (Palace would not oppose move to remove Andrew from succession, theguardian.com, 21 February). Leave him there as a symbol of all that is wrong with an inherited monarchy.
Ian Reader
Lancaster
To rework an old feminist joke about putting a man on the moon, if the government can legislate to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the royal line of succession, could they please also take the opportunity to remove the rest of the royal family?
Derrick Cameron
Stoke-on-Trent
