One year after the Queen’s death, the royals are in a rut

As first published by The Sunday Times in September 2023.

If you still doubted that the British monarchy was adrift a year on from Queen Elizabeth II’s death, two incidents in the past week highlighted the problem. First, there was an illustration of how knotty and unresolved the role of Prince Andrew remains when the disgraced Duke of York was seen travelling to church in Scotland with the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Is Andrew being brought back into the fold, as some have suggested? Or is he facing a lifetime in royal Siberia, as other briefings indicated?

Second, Prince Harry is expected in Britain this week for the ceremonies that will mark the year since Elizabeth’s death. Yet his alienation from the family remains a running sore on the House of Windsor. His latest broadside against the monarchy comes in the form of (another) Netflix series, Heart of Invictus, in which he alleges that he didn’t have a “support structure” around him and that no one helped him deal with the trauma of returning from his tour in Afghanistan.

What to do about Andrew? What to do about Harry? These are just two problems plaguing a monarchy that is arguably stuck in a rut. I’m a royal historian by trade, but it was my sense of an institution in urgent need of thoughtful reform that led me to write my new book: After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?

Monarchy’s missing vision

Individual members of the royal family remain popular — a post-coronation poll from Ipsos Mori showed that 63 per cent of Britons approved of the work the King was doing. The Prince and Princess of Wales are more popular still, while the late queen topped the charts.

But the institution itself is much less popular. The monarchy’s poll ratings are at their lowest point since surveys began. A poll by the National Centre for Social Research at the time of the coronation found that 45 per cent of respondents suggested that the monarchy should either be abolished, was “not at all important” or “not very important”.

This disillusionment is most acutely felt among Britain’s younger generations. So what should the monarchy do next?

Judging from the press coverage that has examined his first year on the throne, our new sovereign isn’t entirely sure how he should proceed. On the one hand, palace sources told The Sunday Times recently that the King intended to be the “steady-as-she-goes” monarch: his reign would emphasise continuity with that of Elizabeth II. But other trusted sources told the Daily Mirror that there was a growing sense of urgency in the royal household.

Charles is understood to have organised a summit with William and Catherine to discuss the future of the monarchy, recognising, it seems, the need to set out a clearer vision for his reign, in case he becomes merely a caretaker king.

The vision that has been outlined for the future of the monarchy — a combination of Commonwealth and climate activism — does not inspire much confidence.

The Commonwealth, although much beloved by the late queen, is a rudderless organisation that lacks a clear sense of purpose. The organisation was at its most influential in its opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa which collapsed in 1994. But since then, with countries such as Barbados and Jamaica pulling away from the crown, its achievements have been of little consequence. Without Elizabeth II, it lacks the central figurehead who did so much to keep it going for so long.

Meanwhile, the question of how we act to slow climate change is fast becoming divisive. Until now, the King has adopted a more outspoken position on this topic than his mother would have risked. No 10 had to ask him not to attend the Cop27 climate meeting in Egypt last year.

This has some benefits, demonstrating that he is in touch with one of the most pressing political concerns of the day. But environmental policy is increasingly divisive politically and, if the King is not careful, he may find himself at odds with large sections of the British public and their elected representatives.

Youth support is dwindling

What seems to be missing at Buckingham Palace is an honest assessment of the scale and nature of the challenge facing the monarchy. There doesn’t appear to be any real understanding of why support for the institution is evaporating among the young, nor the amount of modernisation required.

Until recently, the monarchy was much more popular among younger people. In 2013, some 72 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds expressed a desire to keep it and thought the institution was here to stay. A decade on, things are very different. Support for the crown among the young has halved. At YouGov’s last count, 36 per cent of under-25s expressed support for kingship, while 40 per cent favoured abolition.

In the past, people tended to become more conservative as they aged and, the theory went, more royalist. This doesn’t appear to be happening today: those aged between 27 and 42 have instead expressed growing dissatisfaction with the monarchy. By recognizing that the values and beliefs of Britain’s under-45s are changing, with many becoming and staying more socially progressive than in the past, we can begin to see that the monarchy’s problems are partly structural. The younger generation’s rejection of the institution is partly informed by their rejection of the wider status quo. After all, it’s the younger generations who feel they have been on the wrong end of politics over the past 15 years, so it should come as no surprise that the popularity of the monarchy, an institution at the very core of our political system, has suffered.

The Harry and Andrew sagas haven’t helped. Both have given public interviews with damaging consequences for the crown. Both have the potential to exact further damage.

Andrew has become the ultimate “hanger-on”, rejecting his older brother’s request that he vacate Royal Lodge at Windsor. The King surely knows that this case of stroppy self-indulgence can only cause further harm, and that any attempt to rehabilitate Andrew would be tone deaf.

Harry and Meghan may be unpopular among older Britons, but they still have a large following among the younger generation that the Windsors need to woo. Dynamic, handsome and symbolically representative of multiracial Britain, the couple should have been central to the monarchy’s future plans. Instead, they are a thorn in its side.

For now, the King has little option but to leave Harry in the cold, while keeping the door open lest he and Meghan decide they have had enough of their lives in Montecito and that reconciliation with the rest of the royal family is something they really want.

Even William, who rarely puts a public foot wrong, found himself on the wrong side of public opinion recently when he opted not to travel to Sydney to watch the England Lionesses play in the World Cup final.

Crown must cut costs

Harry and Meghan’s departure has also drawn attention to how overstretched the remaining Windsors are in terms of their everyday public engagements.

The themes of duty and service were popularised by Elizabeth II’s grandfather, George V, when his monarchy was threatened by the political turbulence that followed the First World War and crowned heads of state toppled across Europe.

The monarch and his advisers recognised that a radical PR strategy was needed. They hit on the idea that the royal family would dutifully carry out new forms of civic and charitable work across society as a way of reassuring the public of their value, therefore justifying their privileged existence.

This version of a self-sacrificing monarchy met with great success and was in turn championed by Elizabeth II. A big royal family made up of the late queen’s immediate kin, but also many royal aunts, uncles and cousins undertook a huge range of activities across society on a scale not seen before.

Now, under pressure from the public to rationalise the costs of running what is already a significantly smaller royal family, the King has no option but to scale back, so that the monarchy’s work is more manageable for those undertaking it and better targeted at areas of national life where it can make a real difference.

Political controversy must end

And yet hope is not lost. The King should look to previous renewals of the monarchy, such as that overseen by George V. What, then, might our King do to give his reign a clear sense of purpose and broaden the crown’s appeal among the young?

Charles could start by fully embracing his role as the symbol of our democracy. Since the 1930s, the British monarch has been celebrated by royalists as the defender of our democratic values and freedoms. And yet for all her successes, Elizabeth II struggled to reconcile herself to the implications of this role during her long reign.

She allowed a culture of royal secrecy to build up within our political system that concealed — and continues to obscure — the influence wielded by the sovereign and heir to the throne over government decision-making. Opaque constitutional procedures such as “Queen’s Consent” (now King’s Consent) should be demystified and historians given access to the papers of Elizabeth II, so that we might finally understand the role she played behind the scenes.

Such a move to “open up” the constitution would appeal especially to a younger generation that has become increasingly distrustful of the individuals who run the country. It would see the King set a powerful example of democratic transparency and accountability.

Next, he could begin to uncouple the monarchy from those areas of public life that are becoming increasingly fraught and politicised. Climate and environment, if handled clumsily, pose a grave risk to the crown. The same can be said of the interest the royal family has taken in food security — in his first Christmas broadcast, the King expressed concern for recipients of food aid.

Finally, Charles should downsize the dynasty once and for all, making it smaller and more agile. The focus should be the king, William and their consorts — and that’s it. Princess Anne could, at long last, be allowed to retire. The other, lesser-known figures would quickly fade from view. This process would not only enable Charles to free up several royal residences that could then be opened to the public, but also significantly reduce running costs, with far fewer staff on the payroll and fewer expensive trips abroad.

Charles and his heir should be leading this modernisation drive together. To wait for William’s succession before implementing real change would be a disaster: there is no guarantee that when that time comes Britain will be in better shape. The country is calling out for change now.

Featured image credit: King Charles, 6 May 2023. HM Government. Open Government License v3.0 via Wikimedia Commons