Despite its best efforts, the Royal Family hasn’t managed to stay out of the news in recent months. Sparked by the onslaught on Meghan Markel, the controversies surrounding Prince Andrew and the recent death of Prince Phillip, many in the British public have started to question the 21st-century relevance of one of the country’s oldest institutions. Whilst young people have often challenged historical institutions, something about this time seems different. Even Dame Hilary Mantel claimed that the monarchy was in its ‘end game’ and was ‘not sure if it will outlast William.’ Clearly – this time – the criticism is not just coming from disgruntled teenagers.

“On the one hand, I think the concept doesn’t seem necessary to the running of our country. But yet, admittedly, there I was watching Harry and Meghan’s wedding live on the TV and being a big fan of the Queen’s collection of colour-coordinated outfits”

Like many people, I don’t have a particularly hot or cold relationship with the monarchy. On the one hand, I think the concept doesn’t seem necessary to the running of our country. But yet, admittedly, there I was watching Harry and Meghan’s wedding live on the TV and being a big fan of the Queen’s collection of colour-coordinated outfits. This might say more about my taste for expensive clothing than anything particularly royal-related, but the fact that 63% of the population supports the monarchy suggests that there is at least a latent, if difficult to logically explain, feeling of warmth towards the institution. Sure, most of us would be hard-pressed to describe the royal family’s actual impact (apart from mumbling something about tourism or national pride) but calls for the abolition of the monarchy don’t seem to go further than Twitter memes about turning Buckingham Palace into a giant Tesco.

A large part of this latent affection has surely been intentional. The monarchy has played down any impact they could have on something important like politics and instead chooses to advertise themselves as friendly faces that are worth the fancy houses and extortionate weddings due to their ability to bring in tourists. To some extent this is true; estimates on the monarchy’s contribution to the British economy can reach as high as £1.8bn a year, not including the £550m in tourism. Whilst this sounds like a lot of money, this is only a fraction of the £48bn brought in by British tourism as a whole. In fact, one could argue that visits to palaces would still be popular even if there wasn’t a chance that the Queen had walked the same halls. After all, Versailles Palace is still the third most visited attraction in France hundreds of years after people didn’t take too kindly to Marie Antoinette’s offerings of baked goods. Economics is maybe where most people are the least supportive of the monarchy. In general, people find the principle of paying for a few people to live in palaces and jet-set around the world, even if it only amounts to £1 per person, out of place in the 21st century.

“After all, Versailles Palace is still the third most visited attraction in France hundreds of years after people didn’t take too kindly to Marie Antoinette’s offerings of baked goods”

So if they aren’t particularly economically successful, why do most people still support the monarchy? When people think of the British monarchy, the majority immediately think of Queen Elizabeth. The fact that she is so synonymous with the institution suggests that her popularity is what has kept the monarchy afloat. Many view the Queen as the country’s grandma, whose few appearances are appreciated and accidental frowns are undoubtedly relatable. The creation of this endearing perception of the leader of an ancient and historically powerful institution is one of the Crown’s greatest successes. They have seamlessly changed the idea of a monarch from someone who is inherently separated from and better than their citizens to someone who is simply part of the family.

However, issues arise when information contradicts this perception, or when this persona cannot be applied to future rulers. The Netflix show, The Crown, has been very interesting in this regard. On the one hand, it sparked a fascination with the royals however, on the other, it held them up to scrutiny. Whilst the conversations in the show are not accurate, the show removed the Queen from the grandmotherly figure that the public had grown to love and instead repositioned the royal family to flawed individuals. Beyond television, one of the reasons why some prophesize the decline of the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth’s reign ends is due to the worry that Charles, and later William, are not particularly loveable. Perhaps also their longer periods of limbo before becoming a monarch, not able to work a regular job but also not able to have much responsibility beyond funding a few initiatives, mean that they haven’t really had a chance to prove themselves. This raises questions as to their purpose and why we are funding what seem to be glorified celebrities. In the past, these issues with relatability and relevance weren’t as much of an issue as a monarch was meant to be a distant but strong leader, but now that the public has been let in, it is no longer possible to shut them out.

Unfortunately for the royals, it is this relationship with the public which is the most difficult to maintain. It’s been concerning to see commentators discussing how Meghan Markle was a ′missed opportunity’ for the Royal family — as if the colour of her skin should have been used as a marketing tactic. However, it’s very clear that her poor treatment exposed large cracks in the Royal family’s wholesome façade, reminding the public that the monarchy is an inherently colonialist institution. The handling of the allegations around Prince Andrew has highlighted a level of unaccountability that many deem to be unacceptable. William and Kate’s new YouTube channel seems to be a desperate attempt to grasp some sort of relatability with young people. The day a royal creates a TikTok account and I lose my sanity seems to, unfortunately, be drawing near. Ironically, the best attempts to appeal to young people in a manner that is not entirely cringey have been carried out by Harry and Meghan. Their Instagram account where they followed and spotlighted different small charities (focussing on issues from marine conservation to combatting homelessness) showed how they could use their fame for good whilst engaging with the public in a relatable but respectable way.

While the monarchy has been held up as a fundamentally British institution in the past, the precarious balance in managing the relationship with the British people will determine its longevity. Glorious isolation or strained attempts at relatability will only serve to label the royal family as superfluous and dated. However, using their fame and power for good, be it through the Invictus Games or supporting causes close to their heart, will be their best chance at retaining relevance and respect.