Is the title Duke of Earl taken?

Okay, I lapped up The Crown. And Spencer. 

I confess to occasionally clicking through to read an always-disappointing story on Meghan and Harry, or Will and Kate. Sometimes even something about Charles and Camilla.

I think Queen Elizabeth is a trooper. 

And I did enjoy hobnobbing with the titled/entitled denizens - are they even royal or what? - of Downton Abbey. 

But mostly I'm not all that big on the royal family. 

I'm pretty sure that, if I lived in the UK, I'd be on the side of those interested in getting rid of The Royals. Oh, not in an off-with-their-heads, tumbrels to the guillotine kind of way. But just drastically paring down the outsized (and colossally costly, in more ways than one) role they play there. 

I wouldn't do this until QE2 passes. 

But once she's gone on to be with the Queen Mum, Prince Philip, Princess Margaret - and all those corgis - in the big Balmoral in the Sky - I'd be cutting their allowances and hang on only to the bits that can be directly tied to tourist revenue. And maybe seeing about clawing back at least some of the billions of dollars worth of property those wankers "own." 

Eventually, I believe the British monarchy will be eased off the throne it currently occupies. Surveys show the majority of Brits still narrowly support having the royals in charge of whatever they're in charge of. But the polling, when broken down by age cohorts, shows a trend that's not favorable to the royals. 

Unfortunately for the royal family, Prince Andrew has been in the news, which isn't helping out here any. For all Christmas cards they put out of Will, Kate and their cutie-pie kiddos, or of Kate celebrating her 40th, Prince Andrew's the one making most of the headline news. And even though his royal wings have been clipped - no more appearances at ribbon cuttings, no more patronages, no more HRH style, no more swaggering around with a chest full of military medals - he's the poster child for all that is useless and feckless about the royal family. All topped off with the odor of immorality, and a whiff of the illegal.

Still, Prince Andrew remains a Prince. And he's still the Duke of York.

But now, there's a bit of movement to let the locals weigh in on whether their place gets to be used as part of a royal title. And the first voice heard from is an MP who'd like a bit of a convo about Andrew's association with York:

Labour MP Rachael Maskell (York Central) called for a debate into how aristocratic titles which "take their name from a geographical location" are assigned, having previously said that Andrew's title as Duke of York is "untenable". (Source: Bloomberg)

Since the Tories are (somehow) still in charge, it's unclear whether this will be debated in Parliament. House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - and how's that for a posh name? - has stated (or did he sniff?) that "territorial designations" are up to the sovreign. 

I'm with MP Maskell.

Sure, there are more important fish to fry, or eels to poach, or whatever the Brits might say, but who'd want their city associated with one of Jeffrey Epstein's BFFs? Who wants Andrew, this fatuous clown, as their Duke as things play out with respect to the sordid allegations being made against him? 

Gene Chandler, who wrote and sang the early sixties hit "Duke of Earl," is still alive and kicking at the age of 84. Maybe he'd be willing to lend Andrew his title. I mean, being the Duke of Earl is kind of like being the Prince of Duke, or the Earl of King. Pretty much as silly as the entire notion of royalty in this day and age is to begin with. Andrew would wear the title well. 

My guess is that the Queen's purse will snap open to make some big buck - mega-pound - settlement before the current legal matter facing Andrew gets to court. Before that purse snaps shut, maybe she can send a bit of cash Gene Chandler's way.

Just an idea...

Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl...