It is a truth universally unacknowledged, not least by the media, that the British scarcely think of the monarchy from one year to the next, unless some event – a jubilee, a death, a coronation – sends the institution swimming back into the national consciousness.
Nevertheless, as Lord Halifax told Queen Victoria’s private secretary in 1871 as she disappeared into seclusion: “People want the gilding for their money.” The past 18 months, of course, has had a surfeit of royal occasions, with no more on the horizon for a while, so a period of silence was perhaps to be expected, especially as a 96-year-old monarch was succeeded by her 74-year-old son, whose latest idea of excitement appears to be the introduction of a new tartan for his kilt.
Little to stir the popular mood there, especially among young people, whose support for the institution appears to be waning. That support among teens and twentysomethings has halved in a decade, according to a recent poll – though that may be partly a consequence of all the publicity of last year, good and bad – and there does not seem to be any concerted push for change, or consensus about what that change might be.
In all this, the royals’ problem remains actuarial. The institution is not only old, but looks it, lacking the Camelot touch or the freshness of new faces. Charles will inevitably be a relatively briefly reigning king (though if he lives as long as his mother and grandmother he might yet be wheeled out for his silver jubilee) but William, his heir, is already into his 40s and there’s a long time to go before the next generation is of an age to be seen falling out of nightclubs or having girlfriends or boyfriends. What’s worse, from the palace’s point of view, the pool of royals able to carry out official duties is down to a handful.
Charles’s long experience as prince gives the opportunity for considered change, but his age makes it less likely to happen. The palace claims he has been in discussions with William and Kate about the future of the institution, but there is little sign yet of alteration, either gradual or radical. The first year has shown what Charles favours: continuity and tradition, but the institution is ailing amid public disquiet about the amount of money it receives and also its backstage role in discreet lobbying to maintain the status quo. That is before we get to the still unresolved matters of Prince Andrew and Prince Harry and Meghan. The former still clings on like a wet stain and the latter look to be drifting into the sort of baleful, rancorous exile of Edward VIII after the abdication.
There is scope for more dynamic leadership, on issues such as climate change, the environment and agricultural methods, all of which Charles has personally championed in the past and none of which need bring him into conflict with an enfeebled government.
Even more radical from the man who is head of the Commonwealth, how about some ruminations on immigration and its benefits? Why not champion the return of looted artefacts? That might be painful, given the legacy of empire, but it would certainly demonstrate a degree of empathy. But after this year of steady-as-she-goes, don’t hold your breath for any of that to happen.
Stephen Bates is a former Guardian royal correspondent and author of The Shortest History of the Crown
