As the President of Bafta, it fell upon the Prince of Wales to don his dinner jacket and dickie bow on Sunday evening, head off to the Royal Festival Hall and present the British film industry’s highest honour, Fellowship of Bafta, to Dame Donna Langley, the chair of NBC/Universal.
It may have been the very last thing he felt like doing, but William spoke nobly and fluently about how Dame Donna was “a tireless advocate for British talent abroad, ensuring our storytellers, performers and creators are seen, supported and celebrated on the world stage”. He talked of “supporting women in leadership” and how “our creative industries are one of this country’s greatest strengths”.
It was one of the heir to the throne’s simpler, more agreeable assignments. And yet, as he was delivering these fine words, all that anyone could think of, those in the audience or the millions watching at home, was what it must be like to be William at the moment. Is he scared that all he has ever known is about to collapse? Can the institution into which he was born survive this latest scandal? And then, more darkly: Did he know what his uncle Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was up to? Or: Who in the Royal Family knew what, and when?
These are all uncomfortable questions, and there are more. As Emily Maitlis asked The i Paper readers at the weekend, who authorised the reported £12m out-of-court settlement to Virginia Giuffre, a woman Mountbatten-Windsor claimed never to have met? Where did the money come from? How much did the late Queen know? Or, in fact, Charles?
That we are now asking these questions, even tacitly, and, at some stage for sure, will be demanding answers, is a very significant shift in our relationship with the monarchy. Whatever it presages for our constitution, it probably represents the end of the age of deference to the royals. We, their “subjects”, simply cannot now feel it’s possible to stand to attention, doff our caps, tug our forelocks and take their word for everything. And so, these must be fearful days within the House of Windsor.
Does it mean, for example, the end of soft-soap interviews on the BBC? Consider the difference in the way the corporation’s correspondents treat politicians and royals. Both exist to serve the public (as indeed do BBC journalists), but no member of the Royal Family is subject to anything like the scrutiny, aggressive questioning or even downright rudeness that, say, a Cabinet member or even the Prime Minister gets.
It was a point made by former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt on Radio 4’s Today programme in the days after Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. We knew what was coming because the presenter, Justin Webb, risibly, felt it necessary to warn Monarchists of a delicate disposition that Hunt now commentates on constitutional affairs with “it’s fair to say… some bluntness on occasion”.
Hunt was asked whether the “fawning [in the reporting of the Royal Family] was ending?” “You would hope so,” he responded, and then explained how the BBC had broadcast interviews with Queen Camilla, William and King Charles and had not asked any of the difficult questions the audience may have wanted answering because of an unspoken “deal” with Buckingham Palace over the subjects not to be mentioned.
Webb posited the idea that there has been an understanding among all media organisations that there are “places you do not go” with a member of the Royal Family. Now, however, if the gloves come off, future coverage of royal matters will change. “I hope that they [media organisations] do find that spine,” said Hunt, “and audiences deserve that they do find that spine”.
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame. News organisations have accepted the rules of engagement as they related to the Royals and this has meant that all manner of bad behaviour has largely gone unchallenged. Mountbatten-Windsor was a wrong ‘un operating in plain sight, but, until Maitlis came along, he blithely got away with it.
This may seem to be a tangential issue, but it’s important because it brings us back to the question of the £12m settlement to Giuffre. I know it’s not central to the Thames Valley Police’s investigation of misconduct in public office, but, as it relates to the survival of the monarchy, it is a highly pertinent matter. And if, as many of us hope, the relationship of journalists, and indeed the general public, to the royals has lost its deferential air, the pressure for someone to come forward and explain exactly what happened may become irresistible.
The question of whether Mountbatten-Windsor is removed from the line of succession is irrelevant and also a distraction. No one cares about something that’s not going to happen anyway. No, we have much more fundamental concerns about the accountability, probity and even honesty of the British Royal Family. And that one image of Mountbatten-Windsor in the back seat of a police car has conclusively shattered their protective screen. It’s not to say that 1,200 years of history is about to be repudiated, but things are unlikely ever to be the same between them and us.
Yes, it must be a very scary time for William and the rest of his family.
Your next read
square JENNIE BONDWilliam is seething with anger – and he wants you to know it
square HENRY HILLWilliam Beveridge: the man to blame for Britain’s disastrous benefits system
square EMILY MAITLISEmily Maitlis: After Andrew, the royals must now tell us exactly where our money has gone
square IAN BIRRELLIt’s time to talk about who could replace the monarchy
Hence then, the article about the age of deference died with the queen the royals must speak openly on epstein was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The age of deference died with the Queen. The royals must speak openly on Epstein )
Also on site :