A curious air of desperation has surrounded the revelations from the former royal butler, Paul Burrell, as though everybody involved realises that this is their last chance to make something out of the monarchy. The truth is that there is probably very little left to be known about the royals. We are already drenched in details of their characters and private lives to an extent that would have been unimaginable even ten years ago. Once, the mystery was such that it seemed thrilling enough to learn that the Queen was capable of frying an egg. Now we know the most intimate details of royal adulteries, underwear and family rows. In that sense, royal disclosure is like a drug, requiring ever stronger fixes. Only the suggestion that Buckingham Palace conspired to murder the Princess of Wales or that a senior royal was seen committing buggery still has the power to excite us. Even the professional republicans such as the journalist Anthony Holden - who holds the unique position of being an anti-monarchical royal insider - seem desperate to keep alive the idea that Mr Burrell has details of royal homosexuality and that if he revealed them it would bring the whole family down.

But why should it? Unless we are talking non-consensual or underage sex, it is hard to see why, in this day and age, the royal family should not have a gay or bisexual member - indeed, his "exposure" could actually prolong the monarchy's life, since it would force liberal-minded folk to come to its defence and provide further evidence (alongside the numerous divorces, the cohabitation of the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles, and the drug-taking escapades of Prince Harry) that the Windsors are coming to terms with modernity. The suggestion that they should be retired or that one of them should withdraw from public life because of homosexual activity must surely be intolerable to anybody who supports the cause of gay rights. Just as any other soap opera now has gay characters, so should the royals. An openly gay Windsor, you could say, is long overdue.

The case for republicanism has never, in any case, rested on the behaviour of individuals. It rests, for example, on the anomaly of an hereditary head of state in a society supposedly dedicated to equal opportunities; on the absurdity of a privileged family retaining retinues of servants in an age so conscious of individual dignity and worth; on the dangers of Britain continuing to look backwards to past glories; on the continuation of the royal prerogative, now exercised by government ministers, in what is supposed to be a democracy (the Iraq war being the latest example of its use).

The monarchy is often defended on the ground that, though it has little practical point or rational justification, it is a symbol. If that is true, the answer is that it is the wrong kind of symbol, representing the wrong aspects of Britishness. These arguments have been well-rehearsed in this paper and elsewhere. But they may never convince more than a minority of the population, albeit a growing one. The fate of the monarchy ultimately depends on how it plays with its core support in Middle England.

Here, the Windsors may indeed be in trouble. Middle England will tolerate gays, but only so long as they behave like rather old-fashioned heterosexuals, eschewing promiscuous sex and doggedly pursuing "loving relationships". It will not care for what may seem casual or seedy sex or for dalliances with servants - even though, among the upper classes, that has always been common practice for both sexes and all preferences. It is true that public figures can now survive all kind of scandal. The Kennedys in America have faced allegations of serial adultery, murder, fraud, conspiracy and rape - and still retain a large amount of their collective lustre. But they also have ability, glamour and charisma, and a record of significant achievement. Their bad behaviour is not the only interesting thing about them. The trouble with the royals is that (as far as we can tell) they are rather dreary people and, with the exceptions of Princess Anne and her children, have no notable talents beyond the stamina required to tolerate ceremonial occasions and boring speeches. In their case, scandal overshadows everything else we know about them.

These are problems for the Windsors and their advisers. But anti-monarchists should resist the temptation to rely on royal misdemeanours to make their case. Just as the public sentiment surrounding the Queen Mother's death should not have been hailed as proof that the monarchy was safe - rather the contrary, since it suggested that the crown's best days were behind it - so any revulsion that follows the latest revelations is (alas) no guarantee that it is doomed.

Give the Tories some hair

The British, as the columnist Alan Watkins likes to point out, have never elected a bald man except when offered two bald alternatives. But as the late 19th and early 20th centuries show - Gladstone, Lloyd George, MacDonald, etc - the hairier, the better. This is surely where the Tories have gone wrong, electing two leaders whose baldness was their most distinctive feature. By contrast, hair exists in luxuriant quantities on the Labour front bench, and this may be the secret of its success. Unfortunately, none of those tipped as successors to Iain Duncan Smith quite comes up to scratch. Michaels Howard and Ancram have receding hairlines. David Davis's hair is genuine, but still looks like a wig (as Tory hair in general tends to). Can the PM spare a minister to lead the opposition? Which should it be? No, you civil liberties campaigners, prison reformers, friends of asylum-seekers, bleeding-heart liberals . . . don't all shout at once!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website