Britain’s Royal Family: out of sight, out of mind?

At the weekend, a report from the conservative think tank Civitas appeared: ‘Heavy is the head that wears the Crown: we need a larger royal family for a modern civic society’.

Because the number of Royals is getting smaller through age or retirement from working duties, e.g. Prince Andrew and the Sussexes, the number of their public appearances continues to decrease.

Of course, part of that is because of the pandemic and, after that, the Queen’s demise.

While Britons clamoured in the early 1990s for a smaller Civil List of working Royals — partially paid by the taxpayer — with which the Queen complied, we are now seeing the true cost of that for the monarchy.

The report says (emphases mine):

There was a fall of 1,379 engagements from 2019 to 2020, largely – although not entirely – due to Covid regulations. This was back to 2,087 in 2021 and then back down to 2,081 in 2022. Covid regulations specifically account for a little under half of the realised fall.

Prince Andrew averaged around 250 engagements per year in the five years 2014-2018, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex performed 147 engagements in 2019 (still much less than the 276 attended by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge that year, suggesting that – had they not retired – they would have begun increasing their number of engagements). These retirements account for around a quarter of the realised fall.

The Times‘s Court Circular column records the major public appearances by members of the Royal Family on a daily, or near-daily, basis but there are no doubt other Royal appearances that do not make the paper.

The Civitas report points out that any Royal appearance means something to the British people:

The royal family performs a largely civic function, something the public easily understand but political activists still object to. This model is based on the finest British tradition of reflecting back a sense of civic pride. We mirror this in a much smaller way at a local level with civic mayors, selected from locally elected councillors. These mayors put on ceremonial robes and go about congratulating local people who do good works.

The same can be true of royalty who travel the country shaking hands and cutting ribbons. The more pomp and ceremony associated with the royal family, the more meaningful this celebration of good works becomes. No one would feel quite the same about getting a handshake and certificate from a council clerk, although it would be much cheaper …

As we look ahead to a new King and his successors, the role of the royal family is to be found in the everyday life of British communities. To shake hands, to cut ribbons and to congratulate a worthwhile social endeavour across all parts of the United Kingdom. There is a clear correlation between the popularity of a modern member of the royal family and their position in the table of royal engagements. The Princess Royal consistently comes close to the top of the list of royal engagements and is consistently one of the most popular royals. This popularity is based on something other than a high media profile; it is based on a clear understanding of her role and what the British people value in their royals. In other words, it is about the people, not the royals themselves.

The modern (and future) role of the working royal is to be busy and visible, not in the national press or on social media, but in real life. There is a role for them all, dukes and duchesses and not just the higher profile ‘senior’ members. There is no shortage of invitations to members of the royal family and no obvious decline in people turning out to see them when they do visit. Their popularity is not political, it is in the work they do.

Like any institution or organisation, the royal family needs to be mindful of the court of public opinion, it is no longer ‘revered’ as it once might have been in the days of [19th century constitutional expert Walter] Bagehot. There is a warning contained in the polls. Five years ago, only about one in seven people thought it would be better for Britain if the monarchy was abolished, that figure has risen to one in four today.[11] The number who think abolishing the monarchy would be a bad thing for Britain is still significantly higher than those who don’t, but there is no certainty that public opinion will remain so benign.[12] …

What can be seen, in stark terms, is a trend towards public support favouring those who get their head down and get on with the work; the hardest working royals are most likely to be more popular than the average, those involved in scandal tend to be far below the line. There is a simple, if unremarkable message – just get on with low key visits, shaking hands and cutting ribbons and avoid the scandal and commentary of the public realm.

Royal advisors need to beware of the dangers ahead. Wise counsel would advise the new King and other members of the royal family that financial prudence, a strong work ethic and focusing on the people will be the basis a popular modern monarchy …

In 2021, when the Duke of Edinburgh died, the then-Prince Charles and Prince William held a ‘summit’ on the size of the working Royal Family:

Reports from this meeting suggested the now King was keen to focus on a smaller number of working royals centred around the throne and directly in the line of succession.^[14] This, at least, could be defended on the basis of preserving a constitutional monarchy rather than a wider royal family, with some members very far away from the throne.

This view was based on a hunch that the public had little appetite for additional princes and princesses zapping around the country opening new community centres and, even worse, prancing down red carpets at glitzy showbiz events …

According to Civitas, which shows us their accompanying data charts, the now-King is wrong about our not wanting to see Royals locally instead of on red carpets. This includes minor Royals:

The King’s ambition for a slimmed down monarchy might be misplaced and potentially misjudges the true public mood. Despite the view of the now King, the public still turn out for the Kents and the Gloucesters. The invitations still arrive. There is seemingly little let up in the appetite for royal recognition of local good works. What polling of public opinion does exist suggests the public see their relevance, they just don’t think they are ‘important’ in a strictly political sense. It is impossible to gauge the number of invitations received by each member of the royal family, but there seems little let up and no fewer causes to support. A royal family that is closer to the people, shaking hands and rewarding ‘good eggs’,^[16] will need to increase its capacity rather than limit it.

As the tables below show, the royal family has lost more than a quarter of its workforce (26.7 per cent) and is, on average, almost a decade older than it was 10 years ago. There are fewer royals and the ones doing the work are much older. In 2022, almost three quarters of royal engagements in the UK were undertaken by royals in their seventies, with a 1 in 8 royal engagements undertaken by royals over 85.

The royal family is now at its smallest for some time, and in the coming decades will get even smaller. The King’s ambitions for a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy have been achieved and the future prognosis is for an even ‘slimmer’ family, with only eight or nine working members in 10 years’ time.

A smaller, ageing Royal Family is not good news if it expects to remain in good standing with the public if they are not among us:

… there will be a natural breaking point if the definition of public service, often defined by Her Late Majesty, is warped to mean glitzy celebrity events far removed from the lives of ordinary people who never walk down a red carpet or never drink champagne with film stars.

Within a decade there will only be the Prince and Princess of Wales left under normal retirement age. We can’t simply wait a quarter of a century for Prince George to get to an age where he will pick up the slack with his siblings.

The report says that the Cambridges — the current Prince and Princess of Wales — are going to devote themselves only to their causes. While one can appreciate that also they have three young children, they cannot be too removed from the public at large:

This all comes from a desire to ‘break the mould’ of royal engagements to remain ‘relevant’ and to have a more substantial ‘impact on the ground’. While this all sounds very worthwhile, and for the charities involved it surely is, it potentially means a much more distant royal family in years to come.

In terms of payment for appearances, the report explains how Conservative George Osborne, Chancellor at the time, did away with the Civil List in 2012 in favour of a new model:

George Osborne revolutionised the royal funding model in 2012 by replacing the old Civil List and grants from government with an agreement to hand over 15 per cent of the profits from the £15 billion Crown Estate property empire.[25] This has recently been increased to pay for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace. In 2022 this meant £51.8 million was handed over to the (then) Queen to pay for her work and the upkeep of royal palaces, with an additional £34.5 million to refurbish Buckingham Palace.[26] Most of the money goes on property maintenance, preventing some of our most notable buildings from falling into disrepair. Remarkably the late Queen spent just over £1 million on entertaining – a figure many would expect to be much higher given her role in welcoming foreign dignitaries.[27]

The vast estates of the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall provide funds from their activities for the Monarch and Prince of Wales. These estates generate in excess of £20 million of profits a year for principal members of the royal family.[28] Some critics want to nationalise these estates, though it’s hard to see how this would help. Income should be taxed but the estates should remain charitable endeavours, separate from both the royal family and the state.

Any PR advisor will tell you it’s not the overall budget that will bring the institution into dispute but extravagance and living ‘high off the hog’ that will infuriate the public. 

I do not agree with the proposals the Civitas report makes — e.g. turning Buckingham Palace into a hotel — although, no doubt, some ‘modernisation’ will be necessary.

Returning to the subject at hand — out of sight, out of mind — the report concludes:

The public want a royal family that is closer to them, not far removed. This should be taken literally. There is little need for emoting, there are plenty of celebrities and politicians who will do this. The public need to see ‘our’ royals or hear about their visits to places they recognise, nearby and close to home. In short, this will mean more royal engagements, not fewer based on notions of ‘impact’ and, in practice, more royals, at least for the time being.

Every ‘firm’ needs to keep an eye on the headcount, and royalty plc is no exception. When it comes to cutting ribbons and shaking hands, it’s a royal the people want, not a town mayor or local radio celeb. The King is down at least two princes and one duchess. The Great British Public love a royal turning up to town.

Earlier this year, Princess Beatrice was quietly installed as a Counsellor of State, a nod to the need for an extra pair of hands by a new Monarch. This role is coveted by royals, indicating, as it does, a level of seniority that no title can quite achieve. Beatrice already boasts the title of Princess and the HRH that goes with it, thanks to her father insisting that they take on all the trappings of royalty. Well into her thirties, married and without much of a business career to leave behind, she would make an ideal new member of the firm. As Prince of Wales, Charles rebuffed lobbying from the Duke of York to make Beatrice a full-time working royal, reminding his brother that she was a ‘blood princess’. This bizarre criterion shouldn’t stand in the way of giving the idea a re-think.

Zara Phillips should raise her profile too. Her eventing days now behind her, she would be a popular addition, steeped in the school of Princess Anne. Her ruddy, down to earth approach would be a welcome contrast to the puffed-up self-importance portrayed by recently retired royals.

The late Queen understood that for the monarchy to prosper she and her relatives had to be ‘seen to be believed’, but as of today there are too few royals. A few new members are needed to pick up where late Her Majesty left off. The British public demands it.

In less than a decade, the number of royal engagements could slow to little more than 1,000 a year. Your chances of seeing a royal near you will be virtually nil. This doesn’t bode well for the future of the family.

I hope that King Charles III’s leadership of his family at large will prove many of the public’s doubts about him — mine included — wrong.

We can but see.

Meanwhile, a nation appreciates all the appearances that the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, makes on an annual basis. Often she has more than one public engagement a day. She does it all without complaining and without putting herself in the papers. She is the Royal Family’s heroine. How I wish she could have succeeded her mother.