Five times the British royal family has been ruthless with its own

"In this article King Charles III acted briskly - as briskly as a Windsor ever does - and rather ruthlessly in dealing with his embattled brother. The king declared he was stripping Andrew of his "prince" title and that he would soon be leaving his Windsor lodgings. The fine print - that Andrew supposedly had an ironclad lease on Royal Lodge or that as the son of Queen Elizabeth II he was born a prince - turned out to be pesky details."

""Charles is dutifully acting to preserve the monarchy and maintain its reputation by sacrificing his brother," said royal historian Ed Owens, who added that the monarchy could have "saved itself a lot of trouble" had these actions been taken after Andrew's ill-fated 2019 BBC interview. It may not have been quick, but it was classically royal: Charles put the crown first. The British monarchy has endured for more than 1,000 years precisely because it has shown cold, even surgical, pragmatism."

King Charles III moved decisively to remove Andrew's 'prince' title and to have him vacate Royal Lodge, redesignating him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Legal and hereditary technicalities about his lease and birthright proved secondary to preserving royal standing. The action was described as sacrificing a brother to preserve the monarchy and observers noted that earlier measures after Andrew's 2019 BBC interview might have reduced reputational damage. The monarchy prioritized institutional survival and reputation above blood ties, reflecting centuries of pragmatic, even surgical, decision-making. Subsequent examples of royal boundary-setting include the 2020 response to Harry and Meghan's proposed 'half-in, half-out' arrangement.

Read at The Washington Post