The Royal family must work harder to maintain public trust

Prince Charles may have been magnanimous in Rwanda last week towards Commonwealth countries considering severing ties with the British royal family, but the same largesse would not extend to Scotland should its separatists bash on with their bid to break up Britain.

For while Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor, Alex Salmond, have enjoyed cosying up to the Queen, SNP activists are mostly republicans and many in the party want to hold a vote on keeping the monarchy should Scotland secede from the UK.

The pictures of the Queen, and Charles, in Scotland this week against the backdrop of new calls by Sturgeon for an independence referendum were a reminder that the Royal family plays a big part in cementing Britain together.

In the 2014 ballot on independence, the monarch is widely believed to have tipped the balance in favour of the No camp, with her eleventh hour “I hope people will think very carefully about the future” remark to well-wishers at Crathie Kirk, near Balmoral.

The Union is not in any immediate peril, despite Sturgeon’s pledge to seek a legal plebiscite through the channels of the Supreme Court, and there is little appetite for a disruptive campaign now. But the fact remains that the Scottish electorate is divided, almost down the middle, on the issue.

The royal family, especially the beloved Queen herself, is seen as an immense asset for Unionists, the one link between Scotland and the rest of the UK that can be counted on to lure floating nationalists back to the status quo.

But the royal family is not exactly doing itself any favours; if it is to be central in saving the Union, the family will have to do a lot better than it has done this week.

From covering up bullying claims, collecting wads of cash in suitcases, upping their air miles (while preaching environmental virtue), to overspending on home renovations, the royals have given anti-monarchists much to feast on. And that’s before we even get to Andrew.

With the release of the annual Sovereign Grant report, which details the Queen’s public finances and those of her household, we learnt that an inquiry into accusations that the Duchess of Sussex bullied her staff will be hushed up.

Three years after complaints were filed, and senior aides shared their concerns over the treatment of employees, the palace has decided to keep the results of the probe under wraps.

In 2018, Jason Knauf, the then communications secretary to both the Cambridges and Sussexes, contacted Simon Case, then William’s private secretary and now the head of the civil service, about “unacceptable” behaviour by Meghan towards her PAs — behaviour she has denied.

Knauf said at the time he was “concerned that nothing will be done”, a fear that turned out to be justified. For even if the investigation had vindicated Meghan, it would have improved perceptions had its outcome been published, along with the changes understood to have been made to HR procedures.

It is assumed the policy of silence is to avert further eruptions from the Sussexes, but it leaves an impression of the royals as employers who see themselves beyond scrutiny.

The Sovereign Grant also revealed that eco champion Charles took more than 20 private flights, including climate-clogging helicopters, to avoid traffic jams en route to official engagements. While I don’t have a problem with the heir to the throne arriving on time by whatever means is at his disposal, he should backpedal on the sanctimony until all his journeys are SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) powered.

More worryingly, another embarrassing episode in his charitable fundraising came to light when the Sunday Times reported that he accepted £2.5 million in cash, either in a suitcase or in Fortnum & Mason carrier bags, from a Qatari sheikh.

Although aides insisted the donations, to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund, were handed straight to the charity, it is not a good look for the next in line to be involved in such Arthur Daley transactions.

Team Charles might jump to his defence (Jonathan Aitken said the cash gift would “raise no eyebrows in the Gulf”, forgetting that Charles is heir to the British throne), but the revelations come in the wake of the cash-for-honours allegations and the role of Charles’s former valet, Michael Fawcett, when he was appointed to run the Charitable Fund, casting new doubt on HRH’s judgement.

Today, the Prince would refuse to accept caseloads of cash, a senior royal source reportedly said, suggesting that Charles accepts his actions were unorthodox, at best.

With their huge entitlements and privileges come huge responsibilities for the royals. They can’t live by the rules their worldly friends make up for themselves; they need to be above board to maintain trust and preserve their public contract.

The royal finances also showed that spending on renovations at Buckingham Palace, part of a ten-year upgrade, had increased by 41 per cent to £54.6 million. If we have royals then we must have palaces, but when the nation is tightening its belt, the firm too should rein in its outgoings lest it appears out of touch or just too grand to care.

After the burying of the Meghan bullying report, one courtier said, “Once again, the public will think it’s a case of how can we make this go away rather than actually addressing it”.

This was certainly the conclusion when Andrew’s accusers were paid off with £12 million, far too late to save his reputation but regarded as a desperate measure to protect the family from further fall-out.

The Queen has steered a steady course for 70 years with great reserve. But times have changed and the future of the institution depends not just on spotless probity but on total transparency.