When Parliament Speaks the Language of Love

During a parliamentary debate concerning the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a UK trade envoy, a member of the House declared: “we in this House love them”.

To declare, within a legislative chamber, that “we in this House love them” is to substitute emotion for responsibility. A parliament is not a private circle of loyalists. It is a constitutional body entrusted with scrutiny, balance, and accountability. Its language should reflect institutional distance, not personal devotion.

Such phrasing implies allegiance to individuals rather than commitment to principles. In circumstances involving alleged harm, this rhetoric is particularly troubling. It risks trivialising suffering and redirecting attention away from questions of responsibility towards expressions of solidarity with power. The effect is not reassurance, but distortion: sentiment displaces seriousness.

The absurdity becomes clearer through a simple thought experiment. If it were discovered tomorrow that members of the royal family had been accidentally switched at birth in a hospital, whom exactly would Parliament claim to “love”? The individuals long believed to be royal? Or the biologically “authentic” ones newly identified? The question exposes the emptiness of the declaration. The affection is not directed at persons as such, but at a constructed status — a title, a role, a narrative sustained by tradition.

When institutions cultivate reverence rather than scrutiny, they create conditions in which misconduct can persist unchallenged. Immunity does not always take the form of law; sometimes it is cultural.