Royal Scandal, Public Silence

In debates about school curriculum planning, it is common to hear: “philosophy is overly theoretical,” or even stronger claims: "it is detached from the practical realities of everyday life, it is useless”. In this sense, even if these claims were true and philosophy was, in fact, completely disconnected from the world, it does not imply that it is useless. Anyone who dares to practice it, soon discovers how intellectually stimulating philosophy can be. That being said, this article is not about the benefits of philosophy, rather, it aims to show how philosophy is indeed connected to the real world. Recent news involving Prince Andrew demonstrates this connection, proving that ideas developed centuries ago can guide us in understanding the obscurities of daily events.

John Locke (1632-1704)

John Locke, born in 1632 in Wrington, United Kingdom, was a philosopher who defended a contractualist view of the origins of power. In detail, Locke defended the existence of the state of nature, a stage before political power existed. In this state, all people were equal and lived in harmony. However, not all human acts were legitimate since the natural law existed, which everyone understood and which forbade harming another person’s life, liberty, or property. In this sense, when analysing Locke’s perspective, the following question arises: can his position be interpreted as an early defense of what we now describe as universal human rights?

In any case, Locke exposed that without a formal authority in the state of nature, conflicts easily escalated: individuals attempted to enforce justice themselves whenever the natural law was transgressed, leading to a state of constant war. For this reason, to better protect life, liberty, and property, people agreed to sacrifice part of their freedom by submitting to majority rule, thereby forming a governing authority. However, the existence of this authority does not nullify the natural law. This means that if the government violates it, Locke argues that the people have the right to resist, withdraw their obedience, and establish a new authority that upholds their rights.

As one could expect, Locke’s theory has been criticized many times for promoting constant revolution, a view that can be argued as flawed. One could question: does Locke simply provide justification for revolution? Or the flip side of the coin: is he merely offering advice to governments? After all, if the political power does not violate the natural law, nothing may happen.

Nevertheless, the part of his theory that matters most for our discussion is as follows: Locke argues that revolutions are not caused by minor administrative mistakes or ordinary human errors in governance. Even if rulers make serious mistakes or pass inconvenient laws, people will generally tolerate these problems without rebelling or openly complaining. In this direction, Locke’s view of society can be understood in this way: society, as an entity, is inherently conservative, with its citizens tending to support the status quo.

Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

To explore how accurately Locke’s view of society explains social realities, let us consider Prince Andrew, King Charles III’s brother, and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, as recounted in Virginia Giuffre’s memoir Nobody’s Girl.

Virginia Giuffre was an accuser of Jeffrey Epstein, she took her own life on April 25, 2025, at the age of 41. It was six months after her death that Nobody’s Girl (her memoir) was published. In it, she describes her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew, when she was only 18 years old, including instances such as going to a bar with the Prince, Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's partner, who is currently in prison.

In detail, Giuffre explains that on the way back from the bar, Maxwell told her: “When we get home, you are to do for him [Prince Andrew] what you do for Jeffrey.” She recalls that the Prince paid particular attention to her feet, caressing her toes, and she was nervous that he might expect her to do the same to him. Giuffre summarizes it as: “the Prince believed having sex with me was his birthright.” Another incident was on Saint Thomas Island. Giuffre characterized it as an orgy. She stated that Epstein, the Prince, approximately eight other young girls, and her had sex together. 

After such events, someone might expect a legal procedure against Prince Andrew. Lamentably, for now, we can only analyse the punishment taken by the Royal family, warning in advance, do not expect much. In November of 2025, King Charles III initiated a process to remove Andrew’s Style, Titles and Honours. This means he will not be Prince Andrew anymore; he will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. To be accurate, at the time of writing this article, there has been discussions about whether it should include a hyphen. However, royal observers and historians have deliberated on the matter, and following the decree of the late queen, it has been decided that it will be Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. 

On the other side, Andrew has been given a set amount of time to relinquish his 75-year lease of Royal Lodge, the mansion he has lived in for more than twenty years. At present, it remains unknown where he will reside. Rest assured, King Charles is expected to provide him with a private residence, potentially on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk. The estate spans approximately 8,100 hectares, including 242 hectares of gardens. Furthermore, Charles III will provide him with private support of up to €600,000 annually. In addition, Andrew may receive compensation for terminating his Royal Lodge’s lease early, though the amount could depend on the condition of the property.

“Prince Andrew at Titanic Belfast” by Titanic Belfast, CC BY 2.0

Public reaction

In this context, one might wonder whether citizens, specifically the British people, consider this punishment sufficient. Before answering, it is important to note the words of royal historian Kelly Swaby in the BBC: "Ordinary people don't care about the semantics; they want to see punishment, and public opinion is very much against Andrew." However, paradoxically, despite the public’s demand for severe punishment and the minimal nature of the actual penalty (if it can even be called a punishment) there have been no major protests in England or elsewhere in the UK. 

It is in public reaction, or more accurately, public non-reaction, where Locke’s ideas about society can be observed. As noted, Locke argued that people often do not protest, even after major scandals. The Prince Andrew scandal illustrates this point, showing that the citizenry tends to be generally conservative and largely unresponsive, even in the face of serious wrongdoing. However, in this case, Locke’s words might fall short, as not only have people been unresponsive, but some may even go so far as to condone the lack of punishment for the major scandal. This is evident in the media’s reaction, where newspapers, rather than calling for harsher measures, continue to emphasize the forcefulness of the King’s words. 

To conclude, we shall ask ourselves: Does King Charles III -or leaders in general- take advantage of citizens’ tendency to accept the status quo? For instance, by giving minimal responses to scandals, such as Andrew’s, because they know it will be enough to prevent public protest. If the answer is yes, then one must ask themselves: Was King Charles’ punishment against Andrew merely a marketing strategy rather than an example of justice?