Banning Prince Andrew, paring down royal causes – what a modern monarchy might look like under William

In a recent interview with actor Eugene Levy, Prince William stated that “change is on [the] agenda” when he becomes king. His pivotal role in the decision to remove Prince Andrew’s titles has given a glimpse into what these changes might be.

Announcing that Andrew would no longer use his official titles, Buckingham Palace stated that the Prince of Wales had been “consulted” on the decision. But news reports suggest that it may have been William, rather than Andrew or the king, who was the real driving force behind the decision.

William has already made it clear he takes a dim view of his uncle, for example by banning him from walking in the Order of the Garter procession. It has been reported that as king, William will ban Andrew from public and private royal events, including his coronation.

Read more:
Why Prince Andrew is still a prince – and how his remaining titles could be removed

The 19th-century commentator Walter Bagehot, whose 1867 work The English Constitution provides the classic account of constitutional monarchy in the UK, described the monarchy as the “dignified” part of the constitution, whose opulence and grandeur inspired “awe”, “reverence” and “deference” from its people. He suggested that the monarchy needed to maintain “mystery and theatre” in order to project this image of dignity.

Bagehot warned against the monarchy playing an “efficient” role in the constitution – seeking to solve problems that the country might be facing. But, as a poll from 2024 found, people now want the royal family to talk more about the “social issues and challenges facing the country”, rather than simply looking regal on a throne.

Whereas Andrew arguably embodied Bagehot’s outdated, entitled view of monarchy, William represents a more efficient one. He wants to be out in society, playing a hands-on role to help inspire policy shifts on key issues.

It is clear that William wants to change how the monarchy lives and works day-to-day. But how much change can one man – even a king – make?

Constitutional obligations

As head of state, there are certain constitutional functions and duties which, as king, William must perform. For example, he will have to deliver the king’s speech each year during the extravagant state opening of parliament. This grand display of pomp and ceremony seems at odds with any pared-down vision for monarchy.

But William’s future role also gives him the chance to inspire the sorts of changes he wants to see. The monarch enjoys the right to be consulted by, and the rights to encourage and warn, the government of the day. These rights are known as the tripartite convention. William has previously stated that he wants to “engage governments” on issues he cares about, and this constitutional convention gives him the vehicle to do so.

This is something we are already seeing William’s father, King Charles, do, using his influence to encourage the government to take action on issues important to him. He encouraged the government to launch the Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime. And Keir Starmer explicitly stated that the king’s vision for sustainable, eco-friendly homes had “inspired” government policy on housing.

William has chosen to focus much of his work as Prince of Wales on issues with a social purpose, such as climate change, homelessness and mental health. This is work which he wants to continue as king, stating that what excites him most about his future role is to create “a world … that actually does impact people’s lives for the better”.

He has already tried to use his influence to encourage government support for these issues. In 2023, he spent weeks courting support from ministers for his anti-homelessness initiative, Homewards.

But in the weekly audiences with the prime minister that he will have as king, he will be able to have direct conversations at the highest level of government.

Of course, he will need to remain politically neutral, another inescapable constitutional obligation. Bagehot warned that “constitutional royalty under an active king is one of the worst of governments” and described a political king as a “meddling fool”.

But Charles is already treading the political boundary as king – and so far seems to be avoiding criticism. This is likely because there is largely support in society to see progress on issues like reducing knife crime. To balance his desire to initiate change with his constitutional obligations, William will have to stick to relatively uncontroversial issues on which there is broad shared consensus, like the need to end homelessness.

William can also modernise the monarchy when it comes to cost. Rather than, in his own words, having hundreds of patronages and “loads of causes that you sort of turn up and keep an eye on”, he wants the monarchy to focus on a handful of core projects. This would entail a smaller number of working royals doing fewer engagements, which should mean fewer staff and reduced costs for the taxpayer.

Bagehot suggested that the royal family should “dazzle” people with displays of its “showy wealth”. But William’s recent decision to move his family into Forest Lodge – a relatively modest-sized residence by royal standards – suggests his vision for monarchy is more aligned with that of the European “bicycling monarchies”. This informal style of monarchy with fewer working members is popular in countries where people – including the royals themselves – often bicycle. And they are just as, if not more popular, than the UK’s monarchy.

This, along with William’s approach to his uncle, suggests that he is acutely aware of the royal family’s outward appearance. He is understood to be concerned at the message that Andrew’s continued presence at family events sends to victims of sexual abuse.

William knows that the monarchy has to solve problems, rather than create them, in order to survive. In this vision for monarchy, there is no place for a liability like Andrew.