UNFORTUNATELY, much as many people would like it to be so, the present crisis afflicting the British Royal Family (they prefer capitals) does not herald the end of the British monarchy.

Nevertheless, it’s a big ratchet downwards.

The present investigations, inquiries and potential criminal charges will drag on for months, generating headlines, more revelations and questions.

As more documents, some over 25 years old, are released, they will reveal a lot about who knew what, when, and who knows what else.

Cormac Moore: Is it time for Ireland’s football teams to join together?

It’s a crisis for the Royal Family as distinct from the monarchy.

The modern concept of ‘the Royal Family’ was devised and promoted by the late British queen from 1969. It was first publicised in a BBC documentary of that year.

Walter Bagehot, writing in the 19th century about the British monarchy, said: “Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.”

The 1969 documentary broke that maxim. On reflection, the queen deemed the programme had gone too far, let in too much light, exposed the family as rather too mundane. She had it banned. Only clips have been shown since.

However, Queen Elizabeth carried on with the Royal Family concept, extending the role of monarchy beyond only herself and her consort, the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Royal Family became known as ‘the working royals’, endlessly opening buildings, unveiling plaques and becoming patrons of countless charities.

Unwisely, the Duke of Edinburgh dubbed them ‘The Firm’, bringing connotations of a business to the whole project, but that’s what it is.

In the 1990s it began to fall apart with several divorces, then remarriages. People began to question the extent of the Royal Family and how many were taxpayer-funded ‘working royals’.

The ‘magic’ had evaporated. It was more like a school for scandal, generating lurid headlines in tabloids and magazines.

The latest accusations of sexual abuse and misconduct in public office have raised the demands for scrutiny and transparency to another level.

Last Tuesday’s debate in the House of Commons singled out the disgraced Andrew alone for personal criticism, but that was because he’s no longer a member of the Royal Family. The convention of MPs being unable to criticise the Royal Family was still honoured.

Many MPs are asking why? No-one rose and demanded the abolition of the monarchy. Unfortunately that wasn’t the issue. It’s the secrecy, expenditure and deference that are in question.

For example, Freedom of Information rules don’t apply. It’s generally accepted that Andrew paid off Virginia Giuffre with £12 million.

Where did he get it? We’re told the queen stumped up most of it. Did the then Prince Charles chip in any? Any taxpayers’ money used?

The king, like all English monarchs since 1399, has the duchy of Lancaster, 45,000 acres in the north of England, but also property in London.

He made £24.4m from it in 2025. He pays tax on it. How much? We don’t know.

Prince William has the duchy of Cornwall, mainly land in the south west of England. He made £22.9m in 2025. He pays tax but won’t tell how much. Why not?

Neither pays corporation tax on the duchies’ businesses. Why not?

On top of that income and much more from other properties like the 20,000-acre Sandringham estate, is the government Sovereign Grant, for the cost of official duties, maintenance of properties and staff pay, £132m at present. It has trebled in real terms since 2012. Why?

The taxpayer, that includes you, pays for exceptional events like the late queen’s funeral, a mind-boggling £160m, and also for the extraordinary mumbo-jumbo of the coronation Charles insisted on, including the nonsense of his anointing – all told about £50m.

We don’t know how much security for the Royal Family costs the Metropolitan Police annually, though we do know security cost £20m for the extravaganza of the coronation.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, who successfully proposed on Tuesday the release of all material about Andrew’s appointment and time as trade envoy, was embarrassed and angry when it was pointed out that as minister in 2011, he praised Andrew. He apologised and said he didn’t know then how Andrew was behaving.

As a result of recent disclosures, no minister will turn a blind eye to future shenanigans.

The Royal Family have managed to jettison the man formerly known as Prince, but they won’t be able to wash their hands of his activities. How much did they know? When?

The Royal Family have managed to jettison the man formerly known as Prince, but they won’t be able to wash their hands of his activities

From now on MPs will demand to know the ins and outs of royal behaviour and expenditure.

Tuesday’s debate will mark a turning point in how the Royal Family is interrogated. Long past time.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News