City of London 'Self-Harming' by Lacking Power to Strip Honor from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
The City of London Corporation's position that it cannot remove an historic honor from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been sharply criticized as "unattainable and self-harming" by a senior councillor. This controversy centers on the Freedom of the City of London, which Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor acquired in 2012 "by virtue of patrimony" from his father, Prince Phillip.
Background and Recent Developments
Last year, King Charles stripped Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, of his royal titles, styles, and honors following further revelations about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. In February, he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office for allegedly sharing sensitive information with Epstein while serving as the UK's trade envoy. After spending 11 hours in custody, he was released under investigation and has denied any wrongdoing.
News articles from last year indicated that the City of London Corporation was reviewing whether it could revoke the Freedom from Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor. However, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) recently revealed that the Corporation concluded it is unable to do so. A spokesperson explained: "Applications via patrimony are not considered by our elected Members. We have carefully considered whether it is possible to remove a Freedom granted by patrimony and understand that we are not able to do so."
Political Outcry and Demands for Action
At a General Purposes Committee of Aldermen meeting, Alderwoman Martha Grekos, representing the Castle Baynard ward, raised the LDRS reporting on this issue. She expressed frustration, stating: "No explanation was given of why the Corporation didn’t have the power and no mention was made of taking steps to obtain it, such as through legislation. The Corporation’s position on this matter is both unattainable and self-harming."
Alderwoman Grekos highlighted the public response, noting: "It has drawn an incredulous response from within both my ward and the livery, as I have received several emails. In accordance with the Lady Mayor’s slogan of 'un-squaring the Square Mile', will she now undertake to do whatever is necessary to remove the Freedom from this sleazy individual as soon as possible?" She further questioned whether the Lady Mayor, Dame Susan Langley, agrees that the concept of acquiring the Freedom via patrimony needs review.
Legal Complexities and Private Discussions
The Remembrancer Paul Wright responded, confirming the Corporation's stance that it is "very difficult" to remove the Freedom. He mentioned discussions with City Solicitor Michael Cogher but suggested that further comments should be made in a private session due to legal privilege. Mr. Cogher agreed, preferring to delay updates until the meeting moved to private.
Alderwoman Grekos expressed disappointment, expecting a simple "yes" to her questions. She emphasized: "It feels like there is an issue in removing this Freedom from a man who has for a long time been a friend of a molester of vulnerable young women and who has himself been photographed with them. I just want the Corporation to be very mindful of what message we are sending to women, and how can the Lady Mayor continue to use the slogan 'un-squaring the Square Mile'?" While acknowledging potential legal hurdles, she insisted the Corporation should overcome them.
Ceremonial Significance and Broader Context
The Lady Mayor stated she would answer Alderwoman Grekos's questions in private, citing legal privilege. The Freedom of the City, though largely ceremonial today, is still awarded regularly to notable individuals. In recent years, recipients have included comedian Sir Lenny Henry and actress Cate Blanchett, underscoring its prestige and the sensitivity of this case.
This incident raises broader questions about institutional accountability and the adaptability of traditional honors in modern times. As the City of London grapples with this dilemma, the call for legislative or procedural changes to address such scenarios grows louder, reflecting evolving public expectations and ethical standards.
