Headlines about “Crisis in the monarchy”, accompanied by apparently growing republicanism, are familiar features of our landscape. They come and go like the seasons but almost always turn out to be froth.
When an invisible queen and her lazy son, lambasted by newspapers as the “reclusive widow of Windsor and an unemployed youth”, were the centre of republican agitation 150 years ago, one political observer put it into exquisite context. “In truth, there never has been a sillier cry than Monarchy in Peril,” he said. Until recently I— a royalist, loyal subject — would have agreed.
Today I am not so sure. A generation that in 20 years will rule this land is growing up with no interest in or care for the Queen and her children. The Church of England, long the bastion of royal support, is a shrinking institution in crisis. The Tory party, to whom the crown has always been able to turn, is involved in a bizarre act of self-destruction. The House of Lords has been shorn of the hereditary principle, not a good sign for the only other existing hereditary institution. Power is devolved away to Brussels. All the props that have traditionally supported the monarchy are collapsing. The future is therefore bleak, although to a large extent it is undeservedly so.
The Queen is a remarkable woman who has devoted her life to this country. The Prince of Wales is a thoughtful, visionary man who cares passionately about the vulnerable in our society. His children are fine young men — caring and passionate in a way that you would expect from the children of two exceptional and devoted parents. So why is the monarchy in danger? The foundations of a deferential society are in terminal decay — something that palace advisers are too old and set in their ways to understand. The modernising member of the monarchy perished in a terrible accident six years ago. The wave of sleaze that erupted in the wake of the needless Burrell trial has struck a note of extravagance and corruption.
The Queen and the Prince of Wales are surrounded by sycophants who still live in the 1950s and who do not understand the forces of social and economic liberalism that have permanently transformed our country.
In order to salvage this gloomy predicament, I believe five things need to change quickly. First the grisly, out-of-date apparatus that advises the royal family needs to be dismantled. The courtiers and hangers-on have to go. The accountants must be swept aside.
Nothing can happen until they have gone. There are noble exceptions to this rule, such as Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen’s private secretary, who has done his best. But most strive to keep the Queen out of touch because that is how they keep their perks and power. They keep the Prince of Wales hidden away and inhibit his best instincts. They do not understand William and Harry, just as they do not understand modern Britain. Without them, I believe the Royal Family could again flourish.
The Queen is head of state and has a vital, constitutional role. She needs proper advice on how “the firm” should connect with its subjects. She and her heir should be advised by people who watch Coronation Street, rather than those who think they are in Brideshead Revisited. That means establishing a proper Head of State’s Department, manned by professionals and with the resources to get the best advice.
The state should pay for that. But if the royals want more — someone to squeeze the toothpaste onto the brush — they can pay for it themselves, like any other aristocratic family.
A proper department, accountable to the taxpayer, would anchor them in the real world.
Second, the royal family needs to be shrunk to its bare essentials. The Queen, her son and his children can be enormously popular. But they alone are important. The other members of the royal family are unpopular, irrelevant and likely to drag the institution into disrepute. Privatise them. Give them some money, if necessary, to get them on their way. A small, popular royal family has a chance to survive; a large, expensive one will not.
Third, stop damaging controversies. One of the biggest recurring controversies is the uncertainty over Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. Their relationship has to be acknowledged. Otherwise I believe the people will start to question why the prince is not marrying the woman he loves. Let the couple get on with it. Get them out of the no man’s land that is as uncomfortable for them as it is for the rest of us.
That also means dealing with the constitutional aspects of such a marriage. Camilla does not want to be queen and has no need to be. That is not a bar to marriage, it is only a tired old excuse peddled by the courtiers.
Fourth, acknowledge what Diana meant to this country and build on it. People still feel that some members of the royal family (though not Charles) resent her. Certainly their advisers believe she was all about celebrity and spin. Yet that is quite wrong. She had a remarkable rapport with the downtrodden and vulnerable that could be of huge support to the royal family if only their advisers would build on it. She spoke the language of the dispossessed despite her own aristocratic background. The Queen’s professional advisers should borrow from her lexicon.
That will mean from time to time embracing the cult of celebrity which the men in pinstriped suits at the palace deride. The jubilee last year was the best thing to happen to the monarchy in more than a decade. It was made a success by holding a rock concert at Buckingham Palace and enveloping the Queen with every star, from Sir Elton John to Barbara Windsor. We live in a celebrity age. The royals will never survive if they do not embrace it in the way the Prince of Wales has tried to do over the past few years.
Which leads me to the fifth, perhaps most important point. For some eccentric reason, those advising the Queen decided after the successful jubilee that the best way to secure future support was for the royal family to disappear. The courtiers have been gripped by a death wish; invisibility always breeds republicanism.
The only time the royals have appeared in the past six months has been because of rows (Prince Harry in Australia), extravagance (Charles’s expenditure), public policy controversy (hunting) or sleaze (the aftermath of the dreadfully handled Burrell affair). No wonder they are so unpopular: they make the Tories look like PR gurus.
The prince should be doing what he does best — caring for people in inner cities, embracing Diana’s agenda. His children should begin undertaking engagements, but not ones that involve killing animals. And the palace’s professional PR advisers in the new Head of State’s Department should be ensuring that they get maximum coverage.
The monarchy has reformed and rejuvenated itself many times in the past. Its challenge now is the most dangerous and potentially most exciting it has ever faced. Will the royal family embrace it — or pretend that it is not there?
Mark Bolland is a former deputy private secretary to the Prince of Wales
Minette Marrin is away
