David Dimbleby reveals why he’s investigating the monarchy as royal institution must “adapt or die”

by

I’ve been lucky enough to cover so many important royal moments throughout my career – from joyous celebrations like jubilees and weddings, to more solemn state occasions and funerals. But with my new BBC series, ‘What’s the Monarchy For?’, I’m doing something a little different. I’m really diving deep into what the monarchy is – how it functions, what power it holds, the benefits it enjoys, and how it works to stay relevant to us, the public. I’ve always admired the late Queen’s belief that nothing should be beyond questioning, not even the monarchy itself, and I’m taking her at her word with this series.

I’ve always wondered about the British monarchy and its place in public life. My father, Richard Dimbleby, famously commentated on the Queen’s coronation in 1953, and he was a strong supporter of both the Queen and the monarchy itself. He believed it represented “the enduring strength of Britain and the wonder and envy of a large part of the world.” His conviction stemmed from his belief that the monarchy helped to hold Britain together, especially given the hardship and disorder he’d seen as a war reporter during World War II.

My perspective on the monarchy was different from others. I didn’t share the same reverence for it, and I always found the excessive displays of deference towards the Queen puzzling. However, like my father, I ended up working as a commentator for many official events, which was an interesting challenge as a broadcaster – figuring out how much detail to share and knowing when to speak or remain silent. Essentially, I acknowledged the role of the monarchy without necessarily agreeing with all the pomp and ceremony surrounding it.

My investigation isn’t about whether Britain should have a monarchy versus a republic, though that question does come up. Instead, I’m examining the monarchy as an institution – its power, its wealth, and how it carefully crafts its public image. Maintaining public support is essential for its survival, and I discovered Buckingham Palace spends a lot of effort monitoring public opinion. Sometimes, as with the deaths of Princess Diana and the controversies surrounding Prince Andrew, they’ve misread the public mood.

In the last two years, I’ve spoken with many people on both sides of the debate about the monarchy. This includes interviews with those who advise the monarch – like former private secretaries and press officers – and also with leading politicians.

Getting people to talk about their work can be surprisingly difficult. The royal court, especially, has historically been very secretive, much like the Mafia’s code of silence – omertà.

While speaking out against the monarchy doesn’t lead to death these days – a fate possible in the past – it now means being ostracized, losing access to royal circles as a friend or professional. It was difficult to find politicians willing to discuss their interactions with the late Queen Elizabeth, but David Cameron agreed to share his experiences. George Osborne strongly supported the Sovereign Grant, a large financial agreement that removed annual parliamentary oversight of royal spending. Two former private secretaries to the late Queen discuss challenges the monarchy has overcome, though they only subtly admit to times when the institution failed to adapt to public sentiment.

This three-part series examines the power of the monarchy and King Charles’s efforts to move from being a vocal Prince of Wales to a more neutral king. I’ll explore the traditional constitutional powers of the monarch, like appointing prime ministers and opening Parliament, and how those powers faced challenges during Boris Johnson’s time as prime minister. The series also considers the monarchy’s influence both within the UK and internationally, looking at how the royal family’s celebrity status has been used by governments to achieve various goals – from cultivating relationships with figures like Donald Trump and improving ties with Ireland, to strategically hosting foreign leaders.

The series begins by recalling Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s invitation to President Trump for another state visit to Britain. He dramatically revealed the invitation, pulling it from his pocket like a magician revealing a trick, captivating his audience. He described it as “really special” and “unprecedented,” skillfully drawing everyone’s attention.

What’s truly fascinating is what happens privately, away from public attention. I recently learned, for example, that the monarchy can review any new laws that might impact their personal interests before they’re debated in Parliament. They also have the right to propose changes to anything they feel could harm them.

Throughout her reign, the late Queen approved over a thousand laws, and made changes to at least 160 of them. Surprisingly, some key laws don’t apply to royal staff. For example, the Race Relations Act – which ensures fair employment for all – doesn’t protect people working for the royal family, regardless of their position. This also applies to the Equality Act and workplace health and safety regulations.

Let’s be real, the Royal Family’s money has always been a bit of a black box. Whenever anyone starts digging around asking tough questions, it feels like they just throw up a smokescreen. It’s like they default to being deliberately unclear, and honestly, it’s pretty frustrating as someone who likes to understand how things actually work.

I’ve always been told the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are good for the local areas. Cornwall’s income goes to the Prince of Wales, and Lancaster’s goes directly to the King, and they’re often presented as fair landlords who support the economy. It’s just how things are generally described.

A revealing exchange occurred in 2005 when a parliamentary committee investigated how the Duchies operated. Their representatives responded vaguely when questioned publicly. This was perhaps unsurprising, considering it had come to light that the Duchy of Cornwall – a large landowner with property in 23 counties and London – charges full market rates to organizations like the NHS, charities, prisons, the military, and schools for using its land.

It’s understandable to question why continued public funding is necessary, especially considering the unique arrangement created by former Chancellor George Osborne. This arrangement promised a steady income based on the profits of the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is a unique organization with an interesting history. It began in 1760 when King George III exchanged valuable properties for a guaranteed annual income, known as the Civil List. While it’s not the monarch’s personal property, the Crown Estate is still owned by the monarch “in right of the Crown” – a subtle but important distinction. Officially, its purpose is to generate profits for the benefit of the entire country. However, decisions like leasing a large property to Prince Andrew for a very low rent over a long period raise questions about whether it truly is maximizing those profits.

Although the monarch has been voluntarily paying income and capital gains taxes in recent years, they aren’t legally required to pay other taxes like inheritance tax, which everyone else does. This means royal wealth continues to increase over time, and King Charles is the first British monarch to become a billionaire.

Monarchy relies heavily on public opinion, and for good reason. After the monarchy stopped directly governing and Parliament took over – ending the practice of punishing those who disagreed – its survival depended entirely on the people’s approval. Understanding and responding to what the public thought and felt became a top priority for the monarch and their advisors.

Understanding what the public is thinking is always tricky. Public opinion can change quickly and unexpectedly, and the royal family has sometimes misread the situation – like with the initial reaction to Princess Diana’s death and the slow handling of the Prince Andrew scandal involving Epstein. When this happens, they fall behind and appear out of touch.

This series offers a compelling look inside the monarchy. With support for the institution declining in Scotland, Wales, and across the UK, a detailed exploration of how it works is particularly relevant right now. As the saying goes, it must evolve to survive. Stay tuned for more.

Read More

2025-11-29 03:38