‘People can’t be arsed’: Can the Royal Family be fixed?
Are British people done with the Royals? New polling suggests so. Can the public be brought back on side?
Listen to this article
What’s the story?
Rude, arrogant, and entitled – that’s how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was described in the House of Commons this week, during a speech given by Labour MP Chris Bryant.
It marks a major shift in how Royals (or at least, former Royals) are discussed in public by politicians – and public opinion seems to be along much the same lines.
Recent polls show a sharp decline in people who believe abolishing the Monarchy would be bad for Britain, but The News Agents believe there is simply an overwhelming number of people in the UK who simply “can’t be arsed” about the Royals any more.
Support for the Royals has dropped by 10% in less than six months.
“If that was a stock market fall, people would be saying that is huge,” says Emily Maitlis.
“There will be some people who feel really strongly that they want to see the end of the Royals.
If a referendum on the future of the Royals was held, she believes most people “wouldn't be arsed” to vote.
Lewis Goodall describes it as a moment of “the air coming out of the tyre” of public interest in the Royal Family, but says a lack of interest could be “dangerous” if no one is energised enough to fight to keep, or abolish, the monarchy.
Have things changed under Charles?
Queen Elizabeth II ended her reign in relatively good standing with the British public – although as The News Agents have previously discussed, her payment to Virginia Giuffre to end a lawsuit against Andrew may be cause to reevaluate this.
King Charles has made moves to take more direct action to address the allegations against his brother, such as stripping his Royal title, but Lewis criticises the vague intentions behind such a move.
“We have had a grand total of two statements from the King about his brother, and we still don’t know why he's taken the titles away,” he says.
“Is it because he thinks that Andrew is guilty of something, or is it because he's doing it for PR for his family? He's never explained it.”
King Charles has said "the law must take its course," but Lewis suggests this is washing his hands of the situation – and says that's not enough.
"Given the institutional framework of the Royal Family, and how many people have been around Andrew for so long, it'd be quite useful to have some sort of internal inquiry into what was known in the family," he says.
"If it were a government department, a political party, a charity, or British business, that inquiry would have happened."
Emily believes questions will have already been asked inside the Royal Family.
"They've never done it publicly – and you could argue that is very much owed to us now – but I don't believe it hasn't been going on," she says.
Would a smaller Royal Family work for Britain?
There have long been suggestions of the UK adopting a Scandinavian-style of monarchy, with just a handful of core members. This, The News Agents say, would free members of the extended family from an eternal loop of visits to schools and factories across the country, day-in, day-out.
"One of the problems with this extended royal family is that they're in a gilded prison." Lewis says.
"These are wayward souls who basically have no purpose in life.
"There is a long litany of sadness and tragedy in the family. Set them free. Let them go and do something else with their lives."
Emily says the challenge with a slimmed down Royal Family will be whether it can keep its “soft power” and influence without its current reach.
Jon suggests many of the extended Royals would jump at the chance to be freed from the clutches of the Palace.
"It is a gilded cage that they're living in, with photographers everywhere they go," he says.
"Some of it must be just absolutely awful and intrusive at the same time as being a life that is incredibly privileged.
"They can't turn that tap off, it's there permanently."
But Lewis would be happy with even tougher measures, and suggests the Royal Family may be a bit of a national embarrassment at this point, rather than the institution many believe it to be.
"It is anti democratic, it's anti egalitarian, and it makes us look pretty antiquated," he says.
"It makes me depressed that's what people think of when they think of Britain, as opposed to the many other things that we've offered and contributed to the world."