This year, as King Charles gathered with the royal family for their traditional Christmas at Sandringham, he had much to reflect on. Certainly, the news that his cancer treatment will be scaled back has come as a welcome personal relief, but it will also present opportunities for further overseas travel next year, likely to include a state visit to the US to mark the 250th anniversary of its foundation.
It has been a year that has seen the king grow into the role of a silent but effective diplomat, navigating Donald Trump’s visit while demonstrating the UK’s support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Overseas trips have included a historic visit to the Vatican to pray publicly with the pope, and successful visits as head of state to Canada – shortly after Trump had suggested it might become the US’s 51st state – and to Australia. Moreover, the king has hosted the biggest number of inward state visits to the UK for almost 40 years. For his use of the monarchy’s soft power to support UK foreign policy and strengthen international relations, Charles has won plaudits.
He has been praised too for his openness about his health – a significant departure from centuries of secrecy surrounding such matters in the British monarchy. First came the announcement – in early 2024 – that the king had been treated for an enlarged prostate; then the news of his cancer diagnosis; and now its effective treatment. This has undoubtedly done much to make the king seem more relatable and empathetic, and has consolidated his personal approval rating among Britons at 62%, according to an October poll by Statista.
But for all this, the fly in the ointment has and will remain his brother Andrew, despite him being stripped of his titles and facing imminent banishment from Windsor Park’s Royal Lodge to a property on the Sandringham estate. It is a scandal that has engulfed the family and continues to raise profound and potentially existential questions for the monarchy. In October, on a visit to Lichfield Cathedral, Charles was heckled by a protester who asked, “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?”, and whether the king had “asked the police to cover up” for his brother. While the protester was swiftly bundled off and silenced, questions about the lack of transparency and suggestion of a conspiracy of silence won’t go away.
Walter Bagehot, the Victorian journalist and political essayist, argued that the British monarchy’s “mystery is its life”; and that “we must not let in daylight upon magic”. This has, for more than 150 years, provided the justification for our constitutional monarchy to remain shrouded in secrecy, above scrutiny, and protected from sustained critique. As Bagehot wrote: “Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it.”
Yet automatic deference or reverence is no more. Contemporary expectations of transparency and accountability are finally beginning to focus on the monarchy. Silence now suggests there is something to hide, and this erodes public trust and with it acceptance, never mind affection, for the institution. Indeed, public support for the monarchy reached its lowest level on record this year, with more Britons than ever before questioning its future. While a majority still supports its continuation, the figure has steadily declined since 2022.
There are questions around what was known and ignored regarding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What further questions of accountability and transparency may arise? Should it not be more widely known and considered that as monarch, our head of state, has sovereign immunity and so cannot be tried in court? And then there is the little-known fact that the king’s consent is sought for all legislation that affects the “personal property or personal interests of the crown”. Legislative exemptions from the Equality Act 2010 means that royal household employees cannot pursue discrimination claims (based on race, sex, age, etc) through an employment tribunal or court. Moreover, the monarch’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act prevents scrutiny of how royal funds are spent and conceals the extent to which the monarch may attempt to influence government policy through private lobbying efforts. This, many would argue, fundamentally undermines democratic accountability.
This year the House of Commons library published a research briefing on the finances of the monarchy. It has not made headline news, yet it raises very real questions about the institution and the sources and scale of its wealth, all at a time when the government is struggling to balance the books. The report tracks how the value of the sovereign grant, the monarch’s official funding, has risen to £132.1m for 2025/6, due in part to soaring profits from the crown estate. The king also received £28.7m in 2024/5 from the Duchy of Lancaster and a private undisclosed income from investments, inherited wealth and income from family estates such as Sandringham and Balmoral. Since 1993 the monarch and heir voluntarily pay income tax, but not on the sovereign grant, and nor do they automatically pay capital gains or inheritance tax. Questions as to what constitutes “public” and “private” money should be asked, and a clear separation made between state and royal wealth.
The royal family has consistently been reactive rather than proactive when it comes to change and public opinion, and continues to believe in privilege and privacy at all costs. Yet for the monarchy to survive and thrive, and the king to continue to play a role as a unifying figurehead, supporting charitable causes and exercising soft power internationally, he needs to embrace openness and accountability. Reverence towards the institution is all but lost, but without transparency and letting in the “daylight”, it risks further alienation, mistrust and fatal irrelevance. As the king is praised for the openness with which he has spoken about his health, perhaps he might reflect on the expectations the public may have of a truly modern monarch.
Anna Whitelock is a professor of the history of modern monarchy at City St Georges, University of London
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
