<\/p>\n
As you say in your editorial (31 October<\/a>), \u201cRecent events point to the need for a wider reset of Britain\u2019s relationship with its royal family.\u201d Consider some facts. Between July and September 2025, 4,711 people were seen sleeping rough in London<\/a> by outreach workers and 2,116 of these people were doing so for the first time. At last count, the king had seven palaces and 10 castles. Then there are the 4.5 million children living in\u00a0relative poverty<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the monarchy has fabulous wealth. For the year 2025-26, the king is receiving a sovereign grant of \u00a3132.1m. The crown estate has assets of \u00a315bn.<\/p>\n The monarch holds the Duchy of Lancaster, which at the end of March was worth \u00a3679m and had made \u00a324.4m in annual profits. Similarly, the Duchy of Cornwall had assets worth \u00a31.1bn and annual\u00a0profits of \u00a322.9m. I notice that the Sandringham estate is run as a business, with holiday lets and public access to parks and gardens (Andrew in line for six-figure payout and annual stipend from king, sources say, 31 October<\/a>).<\/p>\n Surely, rather than give Andrew a stipend to stay in a grace-and-favour house doing nothing, the king should offer him a wage to do something useful? I am sure the estate needs tour guides, cleaners, groundspersons, gardeners and rubbish collectors: good jobs on the national living wage for a\u00a0commoner.<\/p>\n Time was, disgraced aristocrats did penance through good works. It is probably just the sort of therapy this disgraced former prince needs, now that solutions such as banishment to the colonies are thoroughly out of fashion. Since the word \u201cfolly\u201d is derived from the Old French \u201cfolie\u201d, meaning \u201cmadness\u201d or \u201cfoolishness\u201d, perhaps The Folly, of all the possible new homes on the Sandringham estate, is the most appropriate choice for Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (Which property on the Sandringham estate is fit for a former prince?, 31 October<\/a>). The etymology is the basis for the original English meaning of \u201cfoolish behaviour\u201d, which later expanded to include concepts of wickedness, and then later to the specific and modern use of \u201cfolly\u201d as a large, extravagant, and often purposeless structure or building. Large, extravagant and purposeless? Yes,\u00a0that just about sums it up. Your article about which house Andrew Windsor might live in could have been combined with your fantasy house hunt feature in the Money section: \u201cBest Sandringham rental properties for\u00a0a\u00a0disgraced former prince.\u201d According to the statement issued by the royal family, the last names of the commoner formerly known as Prince Andrew are not hyphenated, so surely Andrew Windsor is sufficient, or just plain Windsor. It would save time, ink and patience. Surely the one title\/honour which Andrew Mountbatten Windsor should be allowed to keep is the probably appropriate \u201cvice-admiral\u201d (Andrew to be stripped of naval title, says UK defence secretary, 2 November<\/a>).
Rae Street<\/strong>
Littleborough, Greater Manchester<\/em><\/p>\n
John Robinson<\/strong>
Deal, Kent<\/em><\/p>\n
Paul Goodman<\/strong>
Loughborough, Leicestershire<\/em><\/p>\n
Chris Packham<\/strong>
Birmingham<\/em><\/p>\n
Paulina Church<\/strong>
Manchester<\/em><\/p>\n
Lydia Woolley<\/strong>
Weybridge, Surrey<\/em><\/p>\n