I imagine that there are few people who have escaped the news and speculation concerning the now ex-Prince Andrew and the wider Royal Family. I have no intention here of looking at this extensive coverage of Andrew’s woes, but I would like to consider a single word which is the title of a book about the former Duke of York and his family. The word I am referring to is ‘entitled’. It describes an attitude to life which is a common by-product of having almost unlimited privilege and wealth granted to an individual. The word normally carries a negative connotation. It implies that the individual who is indulged and has access to privilege without limit in one area of life, expects somehow that they should awarded similar treatment everywhere else. The toddler who never learns the meaning of restraint from his/her parents will often grow up to be insufferable as a child. Such children are described as ‘spoilt’ and the damage to them is often carried right through to their adulthood. The spoilt child becomes the spoilt and entitled adult, though the areas of early over-indulgence are not necessarily to do with material wealth and possessions.
Many people might consider that to have access to unlimited wealth and privilege is something highly desirable. Indeed, we can understand how the burdens of debt and poverty suffered by many people make them long to be rich. Just a little of the great wealth of the privileged uber-rich would, they think, quickly solve all their financial problems. Wealth, too much or too little, is indeed a problem for many people. One group find they have insufficient to pay for what they need – food, shelter and adequate provision for families. Another group have more than enough, and thus they come to take for granted lifestyles that most of us cannot imagine. Serious problems exist for those at both ends of this spectrum. The very rich and indulged group sometimes get so used to being pampered by others that they become poor at making relationships and the ordinary skills of life which we use to manage our homes. In their small section of society, everyone seems to get by and enjoy life without expending any obvious effort. The ‘set’ they belong to dictates a style of living which promotes holidays, smart parties, alcohol consumption and constant shopping. This does not, of course describe all wealthy people but there is a solid core of rich entitled people in Britain and elsewhere who are firmly tied into a lifestyle which is determined to extract pleasure and complete self-indulgence at every turn.
The disadvantages of poverty are clear to all, but the drawbacks to wealth are less obvious. The lifestyle which leads to an individual being described as ‘entitled’ is one where there has been a forgetfulness of who and what they are and how they are still part of humanity, whether poor or rich. The entitled ones are those who have, in many cases, become disconnected from large swathes of fellow humans who struggle with massive deprivations – hunger, poverty, ill-health, mental illness or disability. To ignore the needs of others because their existence makes us feel uncomfortable is a kind of self-mutilation. We deny ourselves the sensitivity to other people’s needs in case we find that our full enjoyment of life is in some way compromised by this exposure. To put it another way, we draw in our antennae, which are designed to make us aware of need and pain in the world, to protect us and our enjoyment of material things. To be unaware of need in others or make a deliberate choice to ignore it completely is to make a kind of contract with a devil of indifference so that we hand over part of our humanity in return for a greater intensity of pleasure.
There is another word which is often associated with the word entitled and that is the word ‘deference’. Our first word, entitled, comes with an inevitable flavour of disapproval but deference is not necessarily a bad thing. At its best deference acts as a kind of social glue. In very subtle ways, it helps people to negotiate tricky areas of decorum in society so that they know what is expected of them in company. People functioning in a hierarchical structure, like the British class system, need to know how to behave to preserve their place or position. Unlike the negative ideas commonly associated with the word ‘entitled’, deference is something that can play a positive role in maintaining stability in social structures. There are numerous conventions we adhere to which show our common identification with society’s values. It is still the convention in a court of law to stand when the judge enters, and it is common practice to allow a woman to go through a door ahead of a man. Problems arise when deference becomes a negative thing – when it is demanded by men and women in places of power and wealth. In our minds we can distinguish between a valid deference which is earned by its recipients and one which is given or demanded without a proper cause. When politicians or members of the Royal Family misbehave, the deference we have traditionally held for those in high office is challenged. We allow ourselves to have the treacherous thought that people ‘set over us’ are not in fact special or morally superior. While it has been a convenient myth to ascribe social and moral excellence to those who occupy the highest ranks of society, the realities of the past few weeks show this to be far from the true situation.
As I reflected on these two words, entitled and deference, I recognised that both ideas have played a part in the way we think about the Church and its hierarchy. For good and ill we have inherited a highly complex layered organisation which allows those in the highest ranks to think of themselves as having something approaching a divine authority over others. Many years ago, I found myself studying some of the mediaeval texts that were used in the so-called Investiture Controversy that preoccupied secular monarchs and church authorities in the early Middle Ages. One particular piece of writing had enormous influence when it was brought to France in the early 9th century from Constantinople. The anonymous Greek author, known as the Pseudo-Dionysius, saw the entire cosmos, spiritual and material, as emanating down from God. In his book, the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the Church and its liturgies had a crucial role to play in making this downward manifestation of God visible through the act of worship. Hierarchy, priesthood and sacraments were the given means of participating in the Divine reality. Secular monarchs (even our British ones) looked to a sacramental authority to receive their kingly status. Priesthood and kingship were closely aligned ideas and many of us remember the anointing of King Charles that took place behind a screen at the hands of the archbishop and others during the 2023 coronation. This view of the world as a fixed spiritual/material reality made it easier for elites to exercise their control over societies across mediaeval Europe. The idea that there might be another way of organising society other than through divinely ordained hierarchies took centuries to be realised.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of his frustration at the way deference to authority in the church often detrimentally affected communication across the institution. My historical observations about the influence of the work, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, may help us to understand how a form of deference reaching back centuries has been allowed to mark the way people still think about office and power within the Church. This way of thinking about an institution is not going to be healthy. It allows the leaders (bishops and clergy) to think of themselves as having moral and social authority, whether or not these have not been earned. Somehow, we have to find a way to banish the spectre of entitlement from the church. In a complicated and sometimes confusing hierarchical system which allows promotion and ambition, we find an environment where self-inflation, narcissism and hubris are sometimes given free rein. Historically we have these inherited patterns of authority which allow, in susceptible individuals, the worst forms of overbearing and bullying behaviour to be manifest. To counteract these unchristian manifestations of power, we must allow ourselves to be constantly challenging those with rank or hierarchical status to pattern themselves after Jesus. He, after all, had a great deal to say about power and rank and the way that, when they are properly exercised, the one exercising them deserves the honour, deference and respect due to them. These are the themes we come back to again and again. It is because the Church often gets things so wrong in these areas that we have allowed our reputation in the court of public opinion to slip dangerously low in recent years.
Yes, there are distinct parallels between the marked demotions of Andrew Windsor as part of the monarchical system, and the step change decline in the reputation of the Established Church.
One of the key drivers for change has been the availability and speed of access to information. Institutions always react Canute-like to try to hold back the tide of news. It’s as if they can un-invent the internet. Usually they possess many compliant souls who declare social media to be the source of every evil, rather than the sometimes enabler of justice. A perfect example was the attempt by Pilavachi and his royal court to “prevent trial by social media” when news broke of their many and long lasting transgressions.
But in this era of increasing transparency, attempts at silencing are now often failing more quickly. Social media is obviously not a panacea, and not without its own problems. However a decline in its use, as witnessed by the trashing of the former Twitter platform by its owner, and the exodus of users, is a pity. Because many decent people would otherwise have been completely unaware of what our Church leaders have been up to.
Since A Windsor’s activities have been broadcast, I wouldn’t otherwise have paid him attention at all, considering him to be a minor Royal. But the drain on the public purse and stain on the monarchy have hastened his removal. Similarly with Pilavachi, I saw him largely as an entertainer, having seen him speak towards the end of tiring festivals (outside Soul Survivor) and was largely indifferent. Without the (it turns out) accurate exposé enabled by social media, the extent of his influence across charisgelical Christendom would hardly have been known.
‘Where does the King get his money?’ is a BBC post updated 31-10-25. This is a problem for the Royals. It’s also a massive one for the Anglican Church!
Charity commission yearly statements add some transparency on parish life. But is diocesan settlement of abuse hidden? That’s a troubling one for the Anglican Church, and a poison chalice.
Belfast’s ‘charismatic-evangelical leadership guru’, Bishop David McClay, cannot bring himself to even publicly name a notorious scandal concealed for almost 50 years.
KRWLAW published: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’. Yet the BBC and local media report just one victim getting £100K compensation.
What are the total legal costs on the Canon W G Neely case, and also the total compensation costs to any other victims?
Bishop David McClay looks like a bit of a clown for not naming a notorious abuser who was ‘sent to Coventry’ (Tipperary actually, “a long way” but not far enough) in the 1970’s.
So what will he do next? Will he name Neely? Will he confess how much Church money has been spent on legal fees or compensation payments?
An unwillingness to make a transparent public statement on Canon W G Neely leaves me wondering if cringeworthy plastic bags of cash have been spent on this one!
And is the wider UK Anglican Church awash with similar situations? Collection plate pass by……….
Interesting questions for SC contributors!
Would Andrew, formerly pre-fixed with ‘Prince’, be adequately immoral and cynical for a career as an Anglican Bishop? Or might he be good in Anglican Safeguarding? Or could he attend youth raves, where one Canon M Pilavachi was previously a star speaker?
I notice the question of royal entitlement has spread beyond Andrewgate; questions have been raised for some months about the finances of the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall. It’s bizarre to see, via the speculation about which house Andrew will move into, just how much property the royals have at their disposal. When so many cannot find safe and healthy housing, it seems wrong that one extended family should keep so much property empty so much of the time.
Perhaps it was inevitable that there would be a change of attitude and a reckoning following Elizabeth II’s death, but Andrew has done much to precipitate and intensify it. The C of E too is bound to become more exposed, as Charles is less ‘married’ to it than his mother was. Maybe the time is coming when more of the Church’s centralised wealth will be returned to the parishes? It’s long overdue. Here in York Diocese, many rural benefices have been told they will lose their shared priest unless they can stump up £55 thousand every three years. So, no vicar to take funerals, weddings, or school assemblies, visit the bereaved, ill, or troubled, help out in the local community in all sorts of ways. We’re no longer the Church for the whole nation, just for prosperous towns and cities.
Funny, Janet, I was thinking exactly the same thing! The exposure of ‘House of Windsor’ finances, as expedited by ‘Not-now-a-Prince-Andrew’, could be mirrored by a media and public exploration of Anglican Church wealth.
The £100 Million to one billion, as is to be spent on the so-called Spire Project, comes into focus. The controversial slavery reparation scheme will gobble up money which could have been positively used in England.
Lots of positive experiences of Church arise within small group situations, where the absence of Bo-Peep sticks or funny hats or vestments is not a problem. Many tragedies occur in the context of wealthy and powerful abusers, puffed up with the own status and absolute authority, doing exactly as they please.
I recall visiting the shrine Church at Pennant Melangell in Mid-Wales a very long time ago. I was an atheist leaning sceptic but was touched by the kindness of the local vicar and his wife, who provided a warm welcome and hospitality. Might evangelism and discipleship be strengthened if a lot of lavish episcopal schemes folded?
The 2026 Anglican Consultative Council plans to meet in Belfast next summer. There will probably be some activities in St Anne’s Cathedral, a gigantic and largely empty false pseudo-medieval monstrosity. Is the building’s £850,000 Spire of Hope added in 2007 a bold reminder of a denomination obsesses with stunts , status and showmanship? I can see why many Anglicans have reduced their yearly Church contributions, or temporarily ceased them.
From today’s Times: ‘By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the House of Commons. But that no longer applies to plain old Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Next week will see his conduct formally debated for the first time. Expect lots of uncomfortable questions about his Royal Lodge financial arrangements.’
An interesting development.
This blog answers questions that have been puzzling me for the past few years.
I do not understand why the hierarchy of the Church of England do not respond to the years and years of pleas for justice from the victims and survivors.
My background to this is that I was not aware of Church of England abusive safeguarding practices until I started supporting John Brassington in the allegations made against him in March 2020. Many of you reading this will have suffered these unjust practices for some years before that. Sadly, I had never heard of you or your problems. ‘Sadly’ because this is the lack of knowledge which many people have now even those who attend Cof E churches.
I first came across a protest about safeguarding abuses in the Micah 6:8 document which described the abusive and illegal practices by Core Groups. For more than a year I quoted relevant parts of it in my formal complaints against the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, each time thinking ‘this will make the difference’. It was ignored.
Over the years further open letters were written notably by Martin Sewell and counter signed by colleagues. These were sent to the influential people in the Cof E, to those who had the power to make a difference. Stephen has posted blogs about abusive practices which have produced comments by many other people who feel strongly about the state the Cof E with its unjust practices. People who know what it is all about but nothing changed. Similarly some of these blogs were posted on Thinking Anglicans also with comments, but ignored by those it was aimed at. Again, no change.
In this blog Stephen says,”The problems stem from the way many of the hierarchy of the Church of England think of themselves as ‘having moral and social authority, whether or not these have not been earned”. He later says, “To counteract these unchristian manifestations of power [“overbearing and bullying behaviour”] , we must allow ourselves to be constantly challenging those with rank or hierarchical status to pattern themselves after Jesus. ‘
This is exactly what has been happening but to no avail. However, we must not let it go. We must support each other with the energy to keep going.
It seems the media is the only way to reach the general public with what is truly happening. It is already being said that the Church of England is the Post office at prayer. As I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong, those with knowledge of these matters approached Al-Jazeera. They in turn, commissioned a documentary made by the prestigious film company, ‘Clover Films’. It was complete and ready for broadcast when it was mysteriously pulled so it did not reach the general public after all.
Yet, as Stephen advises ‘Somehow, we have to find a way to banish the spectre of entitlement from the church’. If it is in any way possible, this film must be screened. I have approached a one time colleague of mine who is now Director of five film companies in South Yorkshire but disappointingly there has been no reply from him as yet.
So, that seems to be where we are at the moment but, nevertheless, we must continue to face the responsible clergy with the the truth.
Susan,
I think tanks changed warfare at the end of WW1. Attackers could suddenly overwhelm a well dug in enemy. The internet and the media means it’s much harder for archbishops or bishops to hide things. There is cause for hope! Also, it’s suddenly much easier for congregations (or denominations) to share covered up scandals. That’s one of SC (and Stephen Parson’s) great gifts to Anglicanism. The power of television can be a huge force for good.
James
I quite agree with you Susan. It has just been announced that Mr Bates has won a multi-million pound compensation deal which includes a pay out for his 20 year campaign for justice for subpostmasters. I used to think that the government would take action on the Church’s abuse scandal. Then I realised that it essentially ignored the plight of subpostmasters, and that those affected were not ‘receiving just compensation swiftly and neither were those involved in the blood scandal. If the government were not dealing justly with victims and were not making just compensation payments swiftly, leaving victims to battle on for years, I felt it unlikely that help would be given to those abused by the Church in various ways. It has become clear that justice and action to deal with the abuse scandals would not be forthcoming until and unless publicity resulted in sufficient pressure for the government to take seriously it’s duty to protect those for whom they govern. Until that moment the open secret of safeguarding protecting abusers rather than those abused will not be tackled. We must take heart from the victories of others who have finally exerted enough pressure for action to be taken. Those who are able and willing to challenge and campaign in order to address the continuing scandals deserve our thanks, as do journalists and all those who bring attention to these issues in the public media. I find it astonishing that leaders of an institution known to be acting inappropriately in regard to the abuse of children, young people and vulnerable adults, are able to take part in shaping our laws. However, if the opinion of the general public in my community is typical, rather than respecting the Church and it’s officials, disrespect and disgust seem to be the prevailing opinion. The Church has not only lost moral authority among many of those I meet, but is held in as much disfavour and distase as those responsible for the Post Office scandal. Only last week I was told of another story by a coup!e who no longer attend church because of their disgust at the reaction to their whistle blowing. I believe that just as public disgust has led to.greater justice for subpostmasters, and seems to have led to a Prince losing his title, it will one day lead to the overthrow of those not dealing with abuse appropriately in the Church. I wonder if the redress scheme follow the example of Mr Bates and compensate those campaigning for justice. It would make a change from the reported threats and bullying of many of those posing a challenge to those intent on covering up.
There’s no upside to institutional leaders in giving up their income, benefits and other entitlements. They won’t do it unless forced to. They’ll cling on and on to properties and rights even when titles and OBEs are stripped away. Why wouldn’t they?
Those who stand up against corruption like we have seen, are few and far between. Some of them are here. I applaud them. We must do whatever we can, be it small or great to continue this work ourselves or by supporting them.
Thank you Stephen for this and all comments . Although during hundreds of years the church hierarchy has gained entitlement and the traditions and hubris have become embedded, we have to believe that God’s love and forgiveness is stronger. God works in peoples’ hearts and if we keep going, the bullies will not be able to stand and will be ousted like Andrew Windsor.
Someone at a family gathering last weekend very loudly asked what were our thoughts on ‘Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’.
My own response was, and is, very simple. I don’t think about him at all! As I don’t know him personally, nor am ever likely to, his various self inflicted problems are of no interest to me.
Perhaps of more interest is how someone like the late Mr Epstein seems to have had the power to attract the powerful, privileged and entitled to such an extent, and by such corrupt and rotten means. Truly, the love of money is the root of much evil.
Indeed, but an elderly relative cites: ‘Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife’.
American prison bread-and a cell with a bible-could be the best thing for Epstein disciples…..
It didn’t do much for Mr Epstein’s quality of life though.
Seriously, my friend, there is much to be said for being content with a lowly, straightforward and honest life. You may not achieve much in the world’s eyes, but you’ll have peace of mind – and no fears about your past coming back to haunt you.
That’s in the Bible somewhere, too.
I think that’s the thrust of: ‘Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife’.
‘BBC Radio Wales-AllThings Considered-Cherry Vann: -Beyond the Headlines’
A fascinating and brief recent interview!
Is any SC visitor or contributor familiar with the ‘Monmouth Review’. Bangor Cathedral has grabbed the headlines. But is the Monmouth case perhaps of interest to SC?
I have come a bit late to this, but surely entitlement and deference and the accompanying power imbalance are at the heart of abuse. Seriously should anyone these days be called ‘his royal highness’, and, if they are, should we be surprised if they start to believe that they are indeed above others? What about ‘your majesty’, ‘reverend’, ‘venerable’ ‘father’, and so on? Where does that leave everybody else? And what about the clothing? Crowns? Mitres? KG robes? Chasubles? Dog collars? I know reasons can be advanced for such things, but are they worth the difficulties we find ourselves in today? My mind goes back to the words of Jesus, warning against the likes of the scribes, who loved to process about in long robes, and specifically telling us to call no man ‘father’ or ‘rabbi’.
‘