Born to rule
When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment.
Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already.
But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Which is precisely why I believe the British monarchy should be abolished in favour of an elected or appointed head of state. Anyone seeking public office must do so in the full knowledge of the intrusion into their private life that will inevitably follow. However, they should also be able to do so in the expectation that their family and loved ones will be able to live reasonably normal lives out of the limelight.
For example, the two daughters of the current Prime Minister are, rightly, considered pretty much off limits by the media and even his wife, despite controversy over her former 'non-dom' tax status, generally remains in the background, except when she actively chooses to come to the fore. The wife of the US President is officially titled the First Lady and has her own office but is not subject to anything like the same level of scrutiny as her husband, whose health status is a matter of public record. The First Lady rightly enjoys more privacy as she is not herself elected. Crucially, no children of a president occupy an official role unless elected to it.
This is as it should be, of course, but in our constitutional monarchy the whole family has traditionally been expected to play its part in 'the firm', as the late Prince Philip ironically referred to the anachronistic institution he himself chafed against. Unfortunately for them, with official status comes public accountability. Contrast the relative privacy enjoyed by the Sunak girls with the glare of publicity the Wales children live in. Despite their parents' best efforts to protect them from the worst of it they still have to endure the balcony appearances and carriage rides - which, to be fair, at this age they probably enjoy. But wait until they're teenagers!
The image of William and Harry, aged 15 and 12 respectively, walking behind their mother's coffin through central London in front of huge crowds and the world's media should be seared into the collective conscience as something we never wish to see repeated. It should serve as a warning from (near) history. Royal children's titles, along with their duties and responsibilities, are hereditary and their roles assigned by birth, precedent and precedence (their place in the line of succession). As things stand this means that Prince George, the 'heir', will face the full media spotlight, while Charlotte and Louis, the 'spares', will suffer slightly less intrusion. However, another royal funeral (hopefully coming later rather than sooner) will inevitably raise exactly the same dilemma for the family as in 1997.
Maybe it was to save her own children from precisely this burden of responsibility that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, opted for them not to be given royal titles. To his credit, King Charles has also committed to reducing the number of family members expected to act as 'working' royals. Unfortunately, with two senior members now being treated for cancer and a further three having absented themselves, willingly or otherwise, from public duties the old system is under extreme pressure.
The only way out of this sorry situation, so injurious to those individuals caught up in it by accident of birth, must be to end it now by abolishing the monarchy. Sadly, the media spotlight will still be focused on those family members who suddenly find themselves ex-royals but at least the next generation might be spared further invasion of privacy. Eventually, one would hope, their position in society would become normalised as private citizens and, as such, no longer of public interest.
Anyone willingly putting themselves forward for the role of British head of state subsequent to abolition of the monarchy will have to accept that intense media intrusion will be an inevitable, if irking, consequence of the job. Hopefully they will also take into consideration the feelings of their spouse or partner before making a decision, but the expectation should be that their children and wider family at least should be automatically entitled to protection from media prying - including social media. The current situation of hereditary monarchy is deeply anomalous and utterly indefensible in a modern democracy.
It is also hugely damaging to all those born, or married, into it.