Anna Whitelock asks pertinent questions about the conduct of the monarchy (The royal family is edging toward modernity – but in 2026, the public will expect yet more transparency, 30 December). But her analysis of the extent to which royals avoid taxation, scrutiny, equality and accountability surely demonstrates that their lack of transparency is an issue requiring constitutional remedy. It ought not to be a matter of personal discretion for the sovereign to “embrace openness and accountability”. Relying on royal magnanimity responding to adverse public opinion in order to let in some “daylight” seems both inadequate and archaic.
The British monarchy has relied for too long on its opaque arrangements, with government underwriting the “little known” facts of its undemocratic operations. Recent crises have exposed more starkly than usual the troubling inadequacies of this relationship with the state. The Andrew-Epstein scandal underlines the case for making the royal family answerable more directly to parliament and even for codifying moral and ethical principles by which they can be held accountable.
Moreover, when royal conduct is shameful but hidden from scrutiny by protocol, the celebrated “reverence” and “magic” that protects it is more than quaint fantasy; it becomes an affront to democratic principle.
Paul McGilchrist
Cromer, Norfolk
