The monarchy is in deep trouble – and could end. This ‘greedy’ habit may be their downfall, predicts eminent royal expert A.N. WILSON

How safe is our monarchy? When the late Queen was alive, there was no doubt about the answer: the overwhelming majority of Britons believed that the monarchy was the most important factor in our ‘kingdom’ being ‘united’.

After all, we are a deeply divided country. Many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people dislike the Westminster government, as well as the London-based ethos and economic bias of our society.

But the King is a wonderful antidote to this. It is true that Buckingham Palace is in London, but the King speaks Welsh. His Prince’s Trust helped revitalize many deprived parts of Britain.

And his love for Scotland, the country where he went to school and has a house, Birkhall, on the Balmoral estate, is clearly palpable. No politician has such reach and has not met so many different types of people.

As we heard the choir’s hymn after the King laid a wreath at the Cenotaph this month, many of us must have felt the words, “Under the shadow of thy throne have dwelt safely thy saints,” applying not only to our religious hopes, but also for our political views.

But now the opposite view is gaining momentum. During the Queen’s last reign, republicanism as a serious political discourse did not really exist. However, in recent weeks we have seen well-funded and well-organized expressions of republicanism by smart people who wanted to abolish the monarchy.

We must take them seriously, because despite the strengths of the monarchy, embodied in King Charles, the institution is not nearly as stable as my opening remarks might have implied.

Earlier this month, The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches program examined the finances of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster – which generate huge personal and private income for the King and Prince of Wales.

A crowd lines the Mall to celebrate King Charles’ birthday during Trooping the Color in June

It revealed that several much-loved institutions are having to pay rent to the royal duchies, including the NHS. Healthcare is considered sacred by many Britons – even more so than by the Crown.

And yet a large sum is being charged – £11.4 million over fifteen years, no less – to rent a warehouse for vital ambulances.

Despite being visited by the King himself, the RNLI also pays £600 a year to use the Duchy’s beaches for six of its lifeboat stations. Not to mention the charities – including Macmillan, Comic Relief and Marie Curie – who paid huge rents to use an office building in London.

This is a huge conflict of interest that cannot be easily resolved and is unfortunately a problem of the Royal Family’s own making.

In 1837, politicians begged the young Queen Victoria not to pocket the huge profits of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, but instead to put them into the public purse.

She refused and became the richest woman in the world thanks to the income she received from Liverpool Docks and the spa town of Harrogate in Yorkshire, among others. She then bought the Sandringham estate and built Balmoral Castle, placing her and her family firmly in the ranks of the super-rich. As Prince of Wales, Charles agreed to pay some tax on the duchies, but he has always had a blind spot about the disastrous legacy left by Victoria.

During the Queen’s reign, AN WILSON writes, republicanism as a serious political discourse did not really exist

Until her reign, the monarchs depended on Parliament for most of their money, which came through the Civil List. Although they lived in palaces and castles, these were no more their property than the Vatican is the private fief of the Popes. However, reforms introduced by Victoria paved the way for the monarchy to retain private wealth.

It seems the king has persistently continued to do this – and William shows no signs of being otherwise. This one fact makes them seem little more than what they are (in a private capacity): not representatives of national unity, but members of the super-rich club, along with major landowners and international billionaires.

These things are really important to those of us who cherish the monarchy and feel gratitude towards the royals who kept the show going.

Last week, the campaign group Led By Donkeys (whose targets have included the Tory Party and Elon Musk) launched an online protest in response to the Dispatches investigation. After writing ‘Charles stop fleecing Britain’ in the sand on a Cornish beach, the group photographed them from the air and sent a photo of the slogan to numerous phones.

This all happened at a time when Prince William, while on a visit to Northern Ireland, was harassed by crowds of pro-Palestinian protesters.

Aware that it would be a disaster if he or the king entered the incendiary terrain of Middle Eastern politics, William has walked a cautious line and expresses deep sorrow for the fate of the refugees and civilian victims in Gaza. But it is inconceivable that crowds of any political persuasion would have shouted at the late queen, especially in ultra-loyalist Northern Ireland.

AN WILSON notes that the monarchy is looking strong at the moment. However, three of the mainstays – the King, Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales – have all struggled with illness in the past year

She was so impressed that when she bravely extended a hand to IRA officer Martin McGuinness, he smiled sheepishly and bowed as if he were a monarchist.

But of course the whole Republican cause in Northern Ireland is based on the idea that – north and south of the border – the monarchy will be thrown out.

The people of Wales, with the exception of the most ardent cottage burners and members of the Free Wales Army, adored Prince Charles when he tried to learn Welsh at Aberystwyth University. But William has never made such overtures to the principality and it is not difficult to imagine that Labor voters in Wales, like Plaid Cymru, would become broadly Republican.

What about England? One of the things that made the monarch seem part of the English fabric was the church, of which the king is the supreme governor. The ignominious resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury has left the CofE in tatters and Prince William makes no secret of the fact that he is not particularly religious.

Meanwhile, in Westminster, Keir Starmer is abolishing the right of the few remaining hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Apart from the monarchy, there is no area of ​​national or political life where the principle of heredity seems to apply any longer. In such a context, the Republican argument – ​​that it is absurd for a head of state to be the product of an accident of birth – seems stronger than ever.

When King and Queen Camilla went to Australia, they were booed in parliament by a woman who wanted more recognition of the rights of the indigenous people. These kinds of things never happened while the late Queen was alive.

So we monarchists are nervous. At this point, one could say that the monarchy is looking strong. Three of its mainstays – the King, Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales – have all struggled with illness in the past year.

We cherish them and wish them the best. But…no one wants to write these words: imagine a royal family with Charles, Camilla and Kate removed from the scene. How strong would it all look?