‘A family on the throne is an interesting idea … It brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life … a royal family sweetens politics by the seasonable addition of nice and pretty events.” So wrote Walter Bagehot, the Victorian journalist and political essayist, in his 1867 seminal text The English Constitution.
The idea of a “royal family” developed in the late 19th century, at a time when the political powers of the monarchy were increasingly checked, and it was necessary to find a broader identity and purpose. And so a model family, “the Firm” as George VI would later describe it, was established.
Working royals used to make the monarchy more accessible and relatable, while also providing a model of familial Christian morality. The birth of the House of Windsor in 1917, a rebrand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, sought to project a strong family-centred image at a time of considerable political and social change, to cultivate the loyalty of the public, and this became a key part of the British monarchy’s brand and popularity.
That brand is now threatened like never before. While Andrew has been sacked from the Firm, he remains the King’s brother, the late Queen Elizabeth’s reportedly favourite son and eighth in line to the throne, and for much of his life he was a set-piece part of royal family occasions and a working royal.
The royal family watching Trooping the Colour in 2019
MAX MUMBY/GETTY IMAGES
Andrew leaving Westminster Abbey in May 2023 after his brother’s coronation
TOBY MELVILLE/GETTY IMAGES
Unlike the last significant family crisis of the modern monarchy, the abdication of 1936, this is not an immediate matter of constitutional crisis, yet its implications may well prove more significant for the monarchy, and so they should. It is the last of our public institutions to face the full glare of public scrutiny, with questions raised about its role, purpose, governance, financing and accountability. Indeed, it has been long celebrated for its very opacity. As Bagehot argued, the British monarchy’s “mystery is its life”, and “we must not let in daylight upon magic”. This has, for more than 150 years, provided the justification for our constitutional monarchy to remain shrouded in secrecy. Royal finances remain opaque, the extent to which the monarch can and does veto or amend legislation little known, and the royal archives largely exempt from Freedom of Information requests.
Andrew’s arrest has shattered the magic of monarchy and daylight must now flood in.
While in his statement after his brother’s arrest, King Charles made clear, as the prime minister had earlier in the day, that no one is above the law, in fact as monarch, Charles absolutely is. As head of state, he has sovereign immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings. Based on the ancient legal maxim, “the King can do no wrong”, Charles cannot be arrested, charged or prosecuted in a criminal court. He embodies the law, is the “fountain of justice”, and so criminal cases are prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, in the name of the King against a defendant.
Moreover, there are also more than 160 laws from which the monarch is specifically exempt, including certain taxes, employment laws (such as the Equality Act 2010), and environmental regulations. Although from the early 1990s, the Queen voluntarily agreed to pay some taxes, there is no expectation to provide information to the bodies that collect them. Despite investigations after, for example, leaked documents from the 2017 Paradise Papers which revealed that some £10 million of Queen Elizabeth’s private funds were invested in offshore tax havens, she successfully navigated calls for greater transparency, with apparently her age, longevity and popularity insulating her from critique. Then the royal maxim, “never explain, never complain”, was seen as one of the Queen’s great strengths, rather than the cover for a shroud of secrecy.
On her death, the Queen’s will was sealed, as is the exemption afforded all monarchs, but so too was the will of Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, and of a number of other members of the royal family since the early 20th century.
Such secrecy has ensured that their personal financial details and sensitive information are not made public, and the extent of their assets hidden from scrutiny for at least 90 years.
Whether or not the allegations circling Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor lead to charges and a trial, in court (versus the Crown), this whole crisis should see the King act proactively to bring about a sea change in expectations of the monarchy and legitimate scrutiny of it. Beyond co-operating with the police as ongoing investigations necessitate, the King and Prince William must now oversee far-reaching reform, and the confected distraction that is the “royal family” should be exposed for what it is.
The monarchy is a singular continuous entity represented by the King, and his heir. It does not need a large cast of royals to fill the balcony of Buckingham Palace. The notion of a “royal family” should be scrapped. It is no longer fit for purpose, and is not part of the legal or constitutional framework of the British state. Other members of the family should not be paid for at taxpayers’ expense. The current sovereign grant — the monarch’s annual funding for him and his family — is more than £132 million. Those simply related to the monarch should live, work and be held accountable like everyone else. They should not hold a position of unchecked privilege and influence.
Andrew, Charles and Edward at the committal service for Queen Elizabeth in September 2022
PETER NICHOLLS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
So what of a truly modernised monarchy? The sovereign grant, currently a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land and property which is structured to always benefit the monarch, might be replaced by an annual fixed budget for the monarchy, to cover the costs of the monarch and his heir. This should be set by parliament and managed by a government department staffed by civil servants rather than the royal household.
Security costs, which are now typically covered by the Metropolitan Police at taxpayers’ expense (although the sums are not revealed), with arrangements determined by the police, royal family and Home Office, should be made transparent and accountable.
The monarch, all members of the family and the royal household should be subject to the same tax arrangements as other public bodies and private individuals, and personal royal wealth should be audited. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the private estates of the King and Prince of Wales respectively, whose significant incomes go directly to them, should be fully investigated by parliament, with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury. A royal register should be created to require members of the royal family to register their business interests, based on the register that exists for MPs; exemptions should be removed from the Freedom of Information Act, and the royal archives made public.
The strength and legitimacy of all modern public institutions depends on their ability to reflect and embody the values of the society they represent. Institutions in crisis are those that have become detached from the people they are intended to serve, and this is undoubtedly true of the monarchy, regardless of what may or may not happen to Mountbatten-Windsor.
It is surely right, in a much-cherished and mature democracy, that the public should demand that the position of its unelected head of state, the monarch, be based not on magic or mystery but managed accountability and transparency.
To survive, the monarchy must not simply evolve, but fundamentally reform, and that includes not having the King above the law and immune from prosecution. It is time that the family Firm goes into receivership, and that the monarchy is refocused solely on the King and his heir, within a publicly funded, age-old but accountable institution. Without such change, the public consent upon which the monarchy relies should not be afforded it. Its future should not be at His Majesty’s Pleasure.
Anna Whitelock is professor of the history of monarchy at City St George’s, University of London