Royal Flush

Is the British Monarchy Going the Way of the Dinosaur?

Just like in America, Great Britain has a useless class, a group of worthless people who have all of the money, all of the limelight, live reckless angry lives, and contribute nothing but drama and self-indulgent whining to the world. In America, we relegated these people to the city of Hollywood and call them celebrities. Across the pond, they call them royals.

The current British royal family seems to be having some trouble holding onto their crowns. The late Queen Elizabeth II was generally respected around the world for her dignity and her seven decades of untiring service to the monarchy. When she passed away in September 2022, support for the monarchy took a nosedive. It has been estimated that it’s down 25% since her death. And it’s particularly low in the demographic of young British people. You know, the working folks who pay taxes.

They Aren’t Even British

Add to that the fact that the British royals aren’t exactly very British. They are from the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe but during World War I, such a Germanic name sounded a little sketchy, so they officially re-invented themselves as the Windsors. They named themselves after a building (Windsor Castle).

Britain was ruled since 1701 by House of Hanover, a German dynasty installed by the Act of Settlement. These guys were German’s Germans—King George I of the House of Hanover barely spoke a word of English. These Germans produced one very famous monarch: Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria (House of Hanover) married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. She took on his name in 1840. In truth, the royal family barely uses surnames. Elizabeth II signed even her official correspondence simply “Elizabeth.” Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip Mountbatten of Greece before she became queen. Although he was part of the Greek royal family, his ancestry was also Germanic.

This may be the reason that the late Princess Diana was such a catch for King Charles. Diana descends from the bluest of British blue-bloods. She’s part of the Spencer-Churchill clan (yes, that Churchill—they’re distantly related). Thus, Prince William is the first heir to the British throne since the dawn of the 18^th century to actually have British blood in him.

But it’s not the Germanic roots of the British royal family that has people seeing the monarchy as an anachronistic folly. In the United Kingdom right now, a lot of people are fuming that the annual income of the royal family is going to be increased significantly. (They get a lump salary as a group—that’s why being “in” or “out” of the royal family is so important.) It’s called the Sovereign Grant and this year, it is set to go up a lot. The royals will cash in on $165M of taxpayer money for the privilege of being privileged. Since so many in Britain right now are struggling with high prices, inflation, limited resources, and an immigration crisis, they don’t see the need to boost the royal salary. (Just as a point of reference, in 2020, the Sovereign Grant was about $100M.)

Royals are prohibited from working normal jobs; they may not take salaries to work for businesses or even serve on boards of directors. You’ll never see a royal person as CEO of a bank or driving an Uber. But many of them do have side hustles in the form of robbing decent hard-working people. Prince William gets money from the Duchy of Cornwall; his dad, the king, gets money from the Duchy of Lancaster. The duchies have vast land-holdings which earn them “rent” or payments; the duchies are required to funnel tribute to the royals. In other words, Prince William and King Charles are real estate moguls.

The current crises facing the monarchy are so numerous, it’s doubtful they can survive all of them. One or two might not bring them down, but there are so many going on all at once … and the Sovereign Grant is just the icing on the iceberg.

Prince Andrew

Randy Andy was the Queen’s favorite son, but he got embroiled in the Epstein scandal. The late Virginia Guiffre not only claimed he molested her multiple times, even when she was an underage girl, she wrangled a settlement from him for sexual abuse. It’s one of those settlements that are wrapped in secrecy, so we don’t know what the amount was—and Andrew never admitted any guilt.

The problem for Andrew is that the Epstein case is not going away. It will never go away, because it’s a zombie political scandal. A zombie scandal is the kind of thing that you can’t kill, ever. You can ignore a zombie, you can argue against a zombie, you can even drag a zombie into court; but the zombie will survive. It always survives. (The last zombie scandal I know of is the one that says Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who acting alone in killing Kennedy.)

The fact that Virginia Guiffre met a strange death isn’t helping Andrew, either. I don’t mean he was implicated; I mean it cast a fresh hot spotlight on the Epstein saga.

Meanwhile, Andrew continues to reside in the Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion that costs about $8M a year just to maintain. Not bad for a single man who is an empty-nester. Andrew is required to maintain the place as a condition of his living there and apparently the joint is falling apart. King Charles wants his brother to move to a smaller place, but Andrew says he isn’t moving.

Health Problems

Queen Elizabeth II lived to the ripe old age of 96 and was active almost to the day she died. King Philip did even better, remaining relatively fit and active to the age of 99. The rest of family seems sickly.

First, Princess Catherine disappeared for a while with a mysterious ailment that has never been fully disclosed. Right after Christmas 2024, she nl onger appeared in public, and we mere mortals were told it was none of our business where she was. Since that time, we’ve learned she had cancer (no mention of what type) and needed a year to recover, although she months later issued a statement that even during her treatments, she was “doing fine.” I know people who have worked difficult jobs through chemotherapy for advanced cancer. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg worked while beating pancreatic cancer, a tough cancer to survive. But young and otherwise healthy and athletic Kate claimed she felt well but she needed a year off. She looks fine now, and she’s stepped back into public life again. But just this month (June 2025), she bowed out of the Trooping of the Colors (or is that Colours?) at the last minute for no stated reason. Is her health that problematic? Is she unwell? What is going on?

Meanwhile, King Charles also reportedly has some cancer but we don’t know more than that. Some observers say this is what we would call “managed disease,” meaning the king likely has an incurable condition that can be treated and managed but likely never fully overcome. Some people with managed cancer do not even die of cancer, but they die with cancer. Of course, this is speculation, the monarchy owes no explanations to the people who pay for their room, board, food, extravagant jewelry, staff of servants, utilities, travel, and clothing.

The Queen Consort Camilla also may have health problems that are being hushed up. She’s having trouble walking, for one thing, but has rejected the use of a wheelchair. In her case, she may have nothing more serious than bad feet, but even that is hushed up.

While medical privacy is important, it seems to me that if you’re a king or queen or future queen, you owe it to your subjects to disclose relevant health information and share a prognosis. The people you rule over—who sing to you wishing you a long life—deserve at least some information about your health.

Prince Harry

If there was ever a symbol of the disorder and self-inflicted chaos in the British royal family, it has to be Harry.

He seems like a likeable guy, but he “retired” from the royal family before he ever launched. I’m not sure that “retired” is the right word. It’s more like he pitched a fit and ran off with his wife. He stepped down from being a “working royal” (that is, performing royal duties and making official appearances) but he and his wife wanted to keep their titles. I sometimes think Meghan thought that royals weren’t marketing themselves properly and she and Harry could make more money as influencers outside the royal family than they ever could within the palace walls. Which means she wanted to be royal, she just wanted to peddle the title for dinero and not do all that stuffy royal stuff.

Harry fell for flaming narcissist Meghan Markle badly. According to his book Spare, Meghan actually convinced him that she had no idea who he even was or what a prince was or where Britain was until she met him. She had no idea about royal life, and to Harry, she seemed like a breath of fresh air. She was like the breath of fresh air you get when you’re in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the door flies off. It’s fresh air all right, but it sucks you out of the plane into free-fall.

When Harry married Meghan, they decided to do their own thing, or rather to do Meghan’s thing, which was avoid any work contributing or benefiting the royal family. Instead, they focused on doing work that would benefit Meghan. She was quick to insist the royal family were racists, and she claimed she was brutally victimized by them and, in fact, they nearly drove her to suicide. My belief is that if you are allowed to wear a tiara that taxpayers pay for at your fancy wedding—and taxpayers foot the entire bill for your wedding, including the royal carriage you ride off in—you have to turn in your victim card.

Meghan was too American to realize that the British royal family already knows how to make money—but Meghan figured that being an internet influencer was going to be a better racket than the Sovereign Grant money. Unlike Charles and William, Harry doesn’t have duchy money, although he is a duke. His grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, artfully granted to Harry and Meghan the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This was a clever move, since while there is a duchy of Sussex, it generates no money. She knew better than to put Meghan in line for duchy money. It’s like being the Duke of Perth Amboy. Nice title, no moolah.

Harry and Meghan launched a tell-all book (Harry’s book Spare was a best-seller and likely made a lot of money), signed deals with Netflix, launched a podcast with Spotify, plus they do interviews and speaking engagements, not to mention online enterprises, like trying to sell jam for $35 a jar. All of this sounds like Meghan thought being a royal was sort of like being a movie star except you got to wear a tiara and women in Britain have to curtsy to you. Despite Meghan’s alleged culinary skills, her lifestyle brand leaves everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. (I’d name her brands but they re-brand and relaunch every few days so I can’t keep up.)

Add to this mess the fact that Harry’s paternity was always questionable, since he bears a striking resemblance to a man named James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair. The “proof” offered that Harry is not Hewitt’s son is the timeline, namely that Harry was born in 1984 and Diana allegedly started her affair with Hewett in 1986. However, Diana’s affair with Hewitt was a long and serious relationship, since most royal watchers say they were together till 1991. And who is to say when it started? All we have is Hewitt’s word and Harry’s birth certificate. No DNA testing was ever done.

If Harry is not the biological child of Charles, he can still be in the family, but he loses his position in the line of succession. (Right now, Harry is fifth in line to the throne—more on that later.) Since Harry allegedly doesn’t care about the royal family, what does he care if he’s in the line or not? He should just bail and get the DNA test anyway for grins.

But more than his paternity, the paternity of Harry’s kids are an emerging hot-button issue. By all accounts, Harry and Meghan have two children. Some have stated that Meghan had a hysterectomy before her marriage to Harry, but that is not proven one way or the other. Meghan was 36 when she married Harry, not a vast age but an age at which conception and delivery of a baby becomes more difficult. In fact, many medical people would consider a pregnancy at that age to be “high risk.” Yet Meghan conceived easily and had two children fairly quickly. Some say she used a surrogate, pointing out that her “baby bump” was padding. There is a very telling photo of her with padding that fell out of place, putting the bump around her knees. Of course, this has been explained that Meghan did use some padding to exaggerate the baby bump.

Recently, a twerking-in-labor video of Meghan dancing suggestively in a hospital room was released. Stupidly enough, it was released by Meghan. It was tacky and beneath the dignity of a royal family member, which is probably why Meghan not only filmed it but put it out for millions to watch. The hospital twerking video seems sketchy to me:

• Meghan is not in a hospital gown—she’s wearing a black dress. Patients in the hospital almost always have to wear the gown

• Meghan looks like she has electrodes or wires attached to her belly, but they’re not plugged in; most women in this situation are in hospital gowns and tethered by wires to monitors

• Meghan’s moves, particularly a super-low wide-kneed squat are not the sort of thing women in their ninth month normally do because they don’t have the balance

• Meghan seems to be happy, gleeful, and fit as a fiddle. Most women nearing their delivery are a bit apprehensive, worried about the labor and delivery, and focused on their husband. Meghan doesn’t even look at Harry as she grins like a monkey and dances

• Finally, Meghan’s moves seem very strenuous and athletic for a woman hours before giving birth. Most women in an advanced state of pregnancy feel heavy, uncomfortable, have shifted their center of gravity, and can be a little cranky. Meghan looks like she’s a professional dancer who just won the lottery

Then came the “unintended consequences.” The bigger problem for the Sussexes with the labor dance is that it has raised questions in Britain right now about the births of both of the children, since they were handled definitely “off protocol.” Both children were born in ways that defy tradition and if there’s one tradition the British royal family supports it’s the tradition of genealogy and birth. In fact, the whole monarchy is based on it.

• There is no doctor of record for either Archie or Lilibet. Typically, the name of one or more physicians appears on a birth certificate and royals usually announce it separately as well. Meghan and Harry have kept this top secret

• Lilibet was born in California, and her birth certificate has no doctor’s signature; this is usually done for all birth certificates in California

• The birth timeline is screwy, with Meghan having to revise her due date a few times. Some say baby Archie was likely at least two weeks old before he was presented to the public. British tradition usually gives the public a brief glimpse of the newborn as the mother leaves the hospital—usually within a day or two of the birth

• Some have said the babies shown to the public were dolls; they did not move much

• Meghan and Harry have kept photographs of their children strictly limited; the kids are under wraps. While it is important to consider their privacy, royal children are typically photographed right after birth, at their christening, and then in portraits and public events. I doubt King Charles even knows what Archie and Lilibet look like

• Meghan and Harry have diligently kept Archie and Lilibet away from the royal family. King Charles has only seen Archie a few times (while Meghan and Harry were still living in Britain) and he allegedly met Lilibet only once in June 2022 for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebration

• I can’t even find a record that Prince William or his wife ever met Lilibet. They likely saw Archie in his infancy when Meghan and Harry were still in Britain but there are no official records of the heir apparent meeting his nephew or niece

• Archie and Lilibet have very likely never met their cousins, George, Charlotte, and Louis, which is very striking since they are all in line to the British throne

Why the secrecy? That certainly feeds the speculation that there is something fishy going on.

It seems beyond bizarre to keep Archie and Lilibet so far from their British roots. When Sarah Ferguson divorced Prince Andrew, she wanted to move with her two daughters to the United States. The girls would live there part time, and Sarah would take up permanent residence. But in the end, Sarah stayed in London, because she said her daughters were part of the British royal family and, as such, they needed to live and be raised in England. Beatrice and Eugenie are distant contenders to the throne compared to Archie and Lilibet, but Sarah knew the importance of British royalty being British. Beatrice is ninth and Eugenie is twelfth in line to the throne.

There is now rampant speculation that Meghan and Harry either adopted their children or used a surrogate to have their biological offspring. Either way, it likely pulls Archie and Lilibet out of the line of royal succession, since heirs to the throne must be born to the proper parents (in other words, if Meghan didn’t give birth, the child is not suited for the line of succession). If the kids are adopted, they cannot be in the line of succession, either. Neither event—surrogacy or adoption—means that Meghan and Harry did anything illegal. The children would be welcomed into the royal family (if Meghan and Harry mended fences). But they could never ascend the throne.

For all that Meghan and Harry wanted nothing to do with royalty, they sure are sending mixed signals. Meghan still uses her HRH title, although she has been told not to. Meghan says her last name is Sussex (it isn’t, it’s Windsor). She flaunts her Duchess title at every opportunity. Funny habits for somebody who couldn’t burn her bridges to the monarchy fast enough.

The Monarch Has Custody of the Kids

Should Meghan and Harry divorce (which lately seems inevitable), Meghan is likely unaware of the fact that according to the rules of British royalty, all members of the royal family are under the legal guardianship of the reigning monarch. That’s right. The custody of Archie and Lilibet resides with King Charles and will eventually migrate to King William.

Although the monarch does not have to enforce this, he would be legally allowed to make custodial decisions about these children, including where they live, where they go to school, if and under what circumstances they may travel, and—when the time comes—even who they marry.

This is why Charles and Diana’s divorce papers spelled out no arrangements regarding child custody. As long as she lived, Queen Elizabeth II had custody of those two children—not Diana and not Charles.

Although a lot of this stuff goes on behind the curtain, when Charles and Diana were married and Diana wanted to take the little princes to Canada on an official trip, she needed to get Queen Elizabeth’s permission. (It was granted.)

Queen Elizabeth allowed both Charles and Andrew and their respective ex-wives to have a great say in the upbringing of their children, but she could have made specific demands about residency, schooling, travel, and so on. Royal children belong to the royal family and not their parents—it’s the reason Diana spent her first divorced Christmas alone. Queen Elizabeth asserted her right to bring the boys to the official festivities at Sandringham. Diana didn’t have custody (neither did Charles, for that matter).

Another fun fact. The monarch must approve all marriages of the first six people in the line of royal succession. Harry is fifth in line and his son Archie is six. When William becomes king, Harry bumps up to fourth, Archie is fifth, and Lilibet is sixth. That means that if those kids grow up and want to marry, they need Uncle Bill’s permission. Now they could go full Markle and defy him and marry some weirdo. A marriage in defiance of the king would still be legal, but it would automatically take them out of the line to the throne.

Good King William

In all of this drama and dysfunction, William seems to be a calming presence. He is dignified, intelligent, and seems to understand his role even if he’s not very peppy. People like him; popularity polls rank him higher than his father. Of course, this is like people preferring to eat sardines versus snails. Nobody is really that in favor of either of them.

William persists, despite some rumors about his infidelities with Rose Hanbury, controversy over a photoshopped Mother’s Day image (where Kate took the blame, but rumors say William was at fault), Harry’s accusations in Spare of his adult brother punching him in the face, and a lackluster work ethic. Royals are supposed to take on numerous public engagements and do charity work—Diana was famous for it. Anne, less famously, did and continues to do the lion’s share of work in the family. But William does very few events, even compared to the other work-shy royals. Plus, his ongoing feud with Harry doesn’t help his image. What kind of future king can’t even control his younger brother?

Plus, Harry and Meghan have both repeatedly and vociferously called out William and his family for being racists. Yeah, the royal family is so racist that they allowed Harry to marry a Black woman. Or a half-Black woman, whatever.

The Once and Future King?

In the United Kingdom, there is a growing challenge and even sense of outrage as to the return on investment offered by the monarchy. Is this band of high-born misfits and ne'er-do-wells really worth it? What do they actually do? Couldn’t all the money spent on their lavish upkeep be better spent on helping many of Britain’s impoverished citizens?

The scandal over parentage and lineage seems archaic to American ears, but the British royal family rose to power on the fact that it would be a bloodline, a family dynasty that passed from father to son and, if need be, to daughter. The idea that children of mysterious birth have crept into the line seems troubling. The idea that nobody, not even the king, has seen Archie and Lilibet much is even more troubling. Most troubling remains the idea that Meghan Markle managed to marry into an institution so fragile that she almost single-handedly destroyed it in a few years with a couple of screams of racism.

While many British citizens loved the late queen, fewer love the current king, and the future king’s best recommendations are tepid. The tide is turning; younger Britons under the age of 35 are most opposed to the monarchy. They don’t see the point. Andrew’s sex scandals, the mysterious death of a beloved but inconvenient royal family member Diana, and the ongoing drama in Montecito are all giving people cause to think republic rather than monarchy. Plus keeping up appearances with the British royals costs taxpayers more than the value they receive in return.

While no one can predict the future, King Charles III will clearly have a shorter reign than his mother, and it is likely William will ascend the throne in a few years with his Queen Consort Catherine, who is more popular than William. It is ironic that the most popular royals of this generation—Diana and Catherine—were outsiders who married in and not born-to-the-purple insiders. But even with Catherine by his side, it hard to say if William & Company can hold onto the monarchy for another generation.