AN WILSON: Without their links to the Church and Armed Forces, the Royal Family are just a bunch of celebrities. Sooner or later, that means the end of the monarchy

It seems to me that 2024 was an annus horribilis for the Royal Family – but, one hopes, not the monarchy.

It was horrible that three of the best-loved royals – our King, our Queen and the Princess of Wales – fell ill. But their illnesses only sharpened our sense of how much they – and, by extension, the institution they serve – are valued.

During the final years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, there were many who feared Charles would lack his mother’s firmness of touch when he became King – that his idiosyncrasies would prevent him from being a successful monarch and that his notorious thin skin would hide his loveable qualities. Remember the headlines, ‘His Nibs’, when he signed the deed which made him King at the Accession ceremony and lost his rag with the splodgy pen?

But the gainsayers – me included – were wrong. Charles clearly relished his new role and he has fulfilled it with dignity, grace and aplomb. His wife Camilla has been a down-to-earth and humorous presence, keeping him from making any gaffes.

Indeed, for the first year of Charles’s reign, it looked as if the British monarchy had never been in a stronger position. The Coronation in May 2023 was broadcast to millions around the world and proved to be much more than a splash of pageantry and religious ritual. This was a demonstration to other countries that, however excellent their constitutions and ways of life, there was something special about our British monarchy.

The Princess of Wales reveals that she is undergoing cancer treatment in a video released in March

But, within months, there was bad news. In February we learned that the King had cancer. Then it emerged that Princess Catherine was also having cancer treatment. And, in the latter months of 2024, Queen Camilla revealed that she, too, had been suffering from pneumonia – a highly dangerous disease from which it takes months to recover.

In spite of their age and vulnerability, the King and Queen visited Australia in October and put up as robust a defence of the monarchy as they could. It was impossible not to feel sorry for them having to endure that embarrassing week when, despite displays of loyalty by many Australians, the couple almost seemed to be there on sufferance.

When an Aboriginal member of Parliament bellowed her nation’s grievances at King Charles, it prompted many to ask themselves: How long before this voice of Republicanism becomes as strong back in the United Kingdom?

That premonition seemed to come true just weeks later when Prince William was heckled with the chant ‘Free Palestine’ during a visit to Northern Ireland – as if he were to blame for the tragic situation in the Middle East. Such an outburst in the presence of Queen Elizabeth II would have been unthinkable. ‘How long?’, the Republicans must gleefully have wondered – how long?

At present, Republicanism is not popular. But there are signs the movement is gathering strength. One of the most damaging arguments against the House of Windsor is its personal wealth and the way it is exercised – which was put under stark scrutiny this autumn.

A joint investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times revealed some of the ways in which Prince William and his father have accrued truly vast sums of money through the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.

Queen Camilla, King Charles III, Prince William and Princess Catherine pose for a photograph ahead of the Diplomatic Reception in the 1844 Room at Buckingham Palace in 2023

A warehouse where ambulances are stored for the NHS was shown to be paying great rents direct to the duchies, along with charities that are sponsored by Prince William or other members of the Royal Family themselves.

The huge personal wealth of the Windsors is not a problem while they are popular and continue to believe in the constitution they sustain. But it is undeniably an embarrassment. Even the most fervent monarchist cannot really believe that the vast revenues from the duchies should be regarded as the royals’ private money. It isn’t their money, is it? Not in the way that your wage packet or salary is yours.

Prince William has long strived to prove he is a modern royal. Last year, for example, it was reported that he saw no reason why his son George should – unless he chose – be a member of the Church of England or serve in the Armed Forces. That’s fine. We can all see that William is a very different person from his father. He has described it himself as being royal without a capital R.

All of this works perfectly well, so long as the popular members of the Royal Family are in robust health and the monarchy continues to be stable. But when the King, Queen Camilla and Princess Catherine were taken out of the picture through illness this year, we were forced to imagine what the monarchy would look like without them. The vision, certainly, was a bare one. Princess Anne remained the ‘hardest-working royal’ this year despite taking some time off in the summer when she was kicked in the head by a horse. But what of the other royals and younger members of the family? What are they doing to bolster those crucial connections with the country?

To put it another way: What is the point of royalty if it is not spelt with a capital R? If the men and women who are serving this country do not feel a deep sense of kinship with the monarch – a kinship that is meaningless unless he or she can wear a uniform on public occasions – have we not lost one of the essential building blocks of what makes the royals royal? If – as seems increasingly possible – the Church of England is disestablished and the monarch is no longer required to belong to it, another deep link with the past is removed. As James I once tetchily exclaimed to the Puritans who wanted to abolish bishops: ‘Thus I take it, no bishop, no king!’

Sir Keir Starmer’s Government plans to remove the last hereditary peers from the Lords. You can see why. In today’s climate, how can the hereditary principle be defended? But, if you apply that argument to the non-elected members of our Second Chamber, surely it also applies to the monarch? Why should someone be our head of state simply because they have inherited the role?

It was reported that Prince William saw no reason why his son George should – unless he chose – be a member of the Church of England or serve in the Armed Forces

The Prince of Wales, Prince Louis, Queen Camilla, King Charles III, Prince George, the Princess of Wales and Princess Charlotte are seen following the Christmas Day morning service at St Mary Magdalene Church in Sandringham, Norfolk last week

The answer would once have been: Because of the link with the Church. But Charles will surely be the last English monarch who takes that link seriously, and William is not even especially religious.

Another answer is – because of the link with the Armed Forces. But, as referenced, William has suggested he does not think even that would continue when George grows up.

Abolish those two ingredients – church and military – along with the hereditary principle in political life, and the monarchy starts to look vulnerable. It is straying perilously close to being just a group of celebrities, like the Beckhams or Elon Musk. If that is all they are, then the end – sooner or later – will come.

The burden of all this is on the shoulders of Prince William and his wife. They are the ones who have to carry the institution forward into new generations, for the sakes of their children and the majority of Britons who wish them all the very best.

That burden is particularly heavy on William as the shadow of Catherine’s illness continues to loom. We can only pray she makes a full recovery, for the prospect of her absence from royal engagements – however short-term – heaps further pressure on William’s already mighty task.

As we enter a new year, we fervently hope it won’t be another annus horribilis. Like many precious things, the monarchy is vulnerable – far more so than we would like to believe.