Is the royal family doing enough to adapt to modern life?
Source: The Commonwealth Flickr
Alexandra Hill probes the role of the monarchy in modern society.
The royal family are, for the most part, a much treasured and adored British institution. To modern progressive and meritocratic values, this may seem frankly ludicrous and contradictory, especially given that the central premise of the British monarchy is hereditary privilege. But support for the monarchy, even in the 21st century, remains stubbornly high: a YouGov poll in 2015 found that a significant majority (71%) were in favour of its existence. Given the otherwise fractious nature of the contemporary political climate, the kind of consensus seen with relation to the British royal family is both reassuring, even somewhat pleasing.
Despite the outward extravagance of the British royal family and the inherent privilege that comes with being a member of the ‘firm’, the modern royal family have shown themselves not to be merely a symbolic institution nor a revenue-raising tourist attraction. The Queen herself, even at the ripe-old age of 93, is by no means a typical retiree and still clearly feels a great sense of duty to the country: in 2015, she carried out 306 UK engagements and 35 international visits, and even in recent years has not shown much sign of slowing down. As quite possibly one of the most revered women on the planet, her soft exercise of power has been an invaluable diplomatic weapon and domestically, her patronage of over 600 organisations and charities has helped raise the status of important, often overlooked, causes.
William and Harry, who were seen to be an inseparable duo pre-Megxit (the tabloid-coined term referring to Megan and Harry’s decision to step back as senior royals) have likewise made a valuable contribution to maintaining stability in the British monarchy. The two children of the late so-called ‘people’s princess’ have embraced their mother’s legacy in, most notably, their involvement in the Heads Together campaign, a mental health charity committed to destigmatising mental health as well as campaigning for better treatment for those affected. However, their involvement was not by mere association nor was it an act of virtue-signalling, as both discussed the cause in a very profound and deeply personal way. Prince Harry spoke frankly about his own mental health and his experience of seeking counselling to address many of the scars left in the aftermath of his mother’s tragic death. In openly discussing taboo topics such as mental health, the Dukes have done a great deal in modernising the historic institution by demonstrating that the remit of the royals can extend to encompassing important issues.
The clear sense of duty perpetuated by the royals, as well as efforts by the new generation to modernise the role of the monarchy, perhaps explains why the ancient institution has not been discarded. This did at least seem the case until two unique massive tremors ripped through Buckingham Palace, giving rise to a dissipation, albeit small, of more republican ideals.
The first of these bombshells was the Prince Andrew scandal: allegations have rocked through Buckingham Palace of the Prince’s own sexual misconduct against Virginia Giuffre as well as scrutiny over his relationship with the disgraced sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Such a scandal was only compounded by the disastrous ‘car-crash’ interview of Prince Andrew on Newsnight where he, among many other dubious comments referencing strange adrenaline ailments, denied that he had known of Giuffre, despite the existence of a very plausible-looking photograph. Even ignoring the allegations of criminality levelled at the duke, his association with Epstein was, generously put, highly misjudged.
2020 was to kick off on similarly rocky terrain with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announcing their intention to step back as ‘senior royals’ and divide their time between North America and the UK. The hybrid royal role they had devised had seemed to be a classic case of ‘having your cake and eating it’ – keeping all the royal benefits and privilege while neglecting the responsibility that comes alongside. Although in their initial statement they had pledged to remain committed to their patronages and continue to serve the Queen, this was an unconvincing claim and hardly very feasible on a practical level. The official Buckingham Palace response was laden with all the normal pleasantries, but underneath it appeared a hint of anger felt by the Queen’s inner circle, namely at the couple’s failure to inform the Queen of their intentions beforehand. The proposal itself also went down like a lead balloon, and at a later meeting at Sandringham to discuss the couple’s future, it became clear that they would have to become fully financially independent and no longer use their royal titles. In other words, it was a hard ‘Megxit’ with only a short transition period.
Both these royal headlines have, in their own ways, led many to question the stability of the monarchy’s foundations. The institution has historically been embroiled in some bouts of controversy, not least in the suspicious circumstances surrounding Diana’s death. The potential criminality of Andrew’s behaviour challenges the high moral esteem in which we tend to hold the family, and ‘Megxit’ represents the loss of figures who have been pivotal in modernising the institution. More generally, the poor conduct of both Andrew and the couple in both the public and private spheres has evoked significant criticism.
Despite this, the Queen remains a stabilising figure and the glue which keeps the monarchy’s image and popularity in tact. Whether either Charles or William can be effective stabilisers, especially in times of crisis, does however remain to be seen.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.