Why calling Prince Andrew of England a “black sheep” is insulting sheep, ruminants and quadrupeds

There is a pernicious tendency in language that, by dint of repetition, has ended up penetrating the collective imagination: that of associating the term “black sheep” with individuals of dubious morals, dishonorable behavior and, sometimes, openly despicable actions. This slip of the tongue, which seems more the result of mental laziness than of serious reflection, has become particularly insidious in the case of the Prince Andrew of Englandwhom some have dared to describe with such a term.

The dignity of sheep

Before launching into dissecting the reasons why such a label is an insult to such noble animals, it is worth stopping for a moment to reclaim the figure of the black sheep, not as a symbol of disgrace, but as an emblem of uniqueness. In a world where white sheep are often seen as archetypes of meekness and conformity, the black sheep instead represents a proud dignity, a challenge to the uniform flock. Its dark fur is not a sign of corruption, but rather of rarity, of resistance to mold.

Attribute to prince andrew This appellation is, therefore, a flagrant injustice towards the black sheep of the world. The black sheep does not deceive, does not lie, does not abuse its position, much less surrounds itself with characters as sinister as Jeffrey Epstein or Chinese businessmen of dubious origin. To say that Andrés is the black sheep of the Windsor family would be to grant him a halo of eccentric dignity that, frankly, he does not deserve.

The prince of shadows

Let’s not fool ourselves: Andrés, far from being a lost sheep who strays from the fold out of mere rebellion, is a man whose actions reflect a dark tendency to abuse privileges. Born under the protection of luxury and royal pomp, his life has been nothing more than a succession of episodes that oscillate between the embarrassing and the undignified. Instead of fulfilling the duties that his position imposed on him, Andrés has turned his existence into an ode to scandal, dragging with him the prestige of an already sufficiently questioned institution.

We could go back to the years when she enjoyed a maternal predilection that, according to royalty experts, bordered on absolute indulgence. Queen Elizabeth II, who cannot be blamed for anything other than misguided affection, gave her youngest son wings that he used not to fly towards greatness, but to plunge into an abyss of irresponsibility and disdain. It is well known that his relationship with people like Epstein was not the result of a one-time mistake, but rather of a constant search for company and activities that have little to do with the values ​​that the Monarchy should embody.

The interview that condemned him

The peak of his disdain came with the interview he gave to the BBC in 2019, in a clumsy attempt to clear his name after accusations of sexual abuse. Instead of offering convincing explanations, Andrés sank deeper into the mire, with excuses that ranged from the absurd to the grotesque. How can we forget his statement that he could not have sweated during one of the matches because he had temporarily lost that ability due to war trauma? That interview not only ruined any vestige of credibility he had left, but also offered a window into his inability to take any responsibility.

The fallen prince (but not poor)

King Charles III, who inherited the difficult task of safeguarding the image of the Monarchy, has been relentless in his treatment of his brother. He has withdrawn titles, financial allocations and official functions, and has tried, without much success, to relegate him to oblivion. However, Andrés, like a shipwrecked man clinging to a plank, refuses to abandon his life of privilege. Despite being stripped of his royal income, the Duke of York continues to reside at Royal Lodge, a mansion that costs hundreds of thousands of pounds annually to maintain. Where do the funds come from to maintain such a lifestyle? That is a question that Andrés, as with so many other questions, seems determined to avoid.

The resistance of the unworthy man

As new scandals come to light, including his ties to an alleged Chinese spy, Prince Andrew clings to a position that does not belong to him. His refusal to move to a more modest residence or to explain the source of his income is just another chapter in a story of arrogance and disregard for the rules that govern ordinary mortals.

There is no room for pastoral metaphors here. Andrew is not a black sheep, not even a lost sheep; Rather, he is a predator who has used his position to take advantage of others. To compare it to a black sheep is to insult those creatures that, despite their uniqueness, are still part of the flock. Andrés, on the other hand, has left behind any vestige of belonging, becoming a figure who finds no place even among his own.

A failed metaphor

Therefore, let’s call a spade a spade. Andrés is not the black sheep of the Windsors; It is, if anything, a wolf that, disguised for years as a member of the flock, has finally revealed its nature. While the black sheep remain a symbol of integrity in the face of conformity, Prince Andrew is a reminder of how power and privilege, if not managed responsibly, can become weapons of self-destruction.

In the end, perhaps it is time that dictates your destiny. But in the meantime, let’s do justice to the language and stop tarnishing the good name of the black sheep with such unfortunate comparisons. Prince Andrew is much, much worse.