For most institutions, a week of wall-to-wall headlines re-hashing one of their most humiliating chapters would trigger an overhaul, a public apology, and a few carefully chosen resignations. For Buckingham Palace, it is business as usual.
The latest round of national hand-wringing over the Duke of York’s past associations has played out with a weary familiarity. This time, the coverage has been rekindled by the drip-feed of fresh interviews, documentaries, and court document chatter in the foreign press, all dredging up the same infamous names, same incriminating photographs, and the same public relations train-wreck of 2019.
In what might be described as a masterclass in aristocratic resilience — or a stubborn refusal to read the room — the royal machine has opted for the time-honoured strategy of pretending the noise will die down if everyone simply stops talking about it. One can almost hear the strategy session: “Do nothing, say nothing, and hope Netflix gets distracted by another series about Victorian murderers.”
It is a plan that might have a sliver of merit if Britain’s tabloids were bound by the Geneva Conventions. Sadly for the Palace, they are not. The nation’s red-tops have been sharpening their front-page knives all week, while the broadsheets have been busy polishing think-pieces on whether the monarchy’s very existence is undermined by “associations” no amount of Balmoral fresh air can cleanse.
Somewhere, a weary Palace press officer is re-reading the Duke’s BBC Newsnight transcript like an undertaker inspecting a collapsed coffin lid. That 2019 interview, already filed under “what not to do when accused of anything,” remains the albatross around the institution’s neck. The more it is replayed, the more it becomes a kind of black-comedy staple, complete with its ill-advised discussion of pizza restaurants and perspiration.
The cynic might observe that in any other walk of life, a figure so radioactive to public opinion would be quietly retired from view. In the Windsor universe, “retired” seems to mean “kept away from balcony appearances” while still occasionally being spotted riding horses at Windsor Great Park. This, we are told, is what accountability looks like when your mother was Queen.
That the Duke continues to live on the Windsor estate — complete with security detail — is the sort of fact that does not play well with the public mood, particularly as households up and down the country wrestle with grocery bills and collapsing public services. Yet the public purse has a mysterious elasticity when it comes to funding the lifestyles of the well-born.
The international press, of course, have been less inclined toward Britain’s delicate dance around the matter. American media outlets have this week repeated, with their usual lack of deference, the blunt details that UK broadcasters prefer to euphemise into “controversial friendships.” European commentary has been similarly unvarnished, noting with some astonishment that the whole affair has failed to produce any institutional consequences worth the name.
The Palace line, such as it is, remains that the Duke of York is “not undertaking public duties” and that his status is a “private matter.” This is a curious definition of privacy when the subject is photographed every other week, often looking like a man determined to appear unfazed while walking his dogs.
Some royal commentators — the ones who can still utter the words “public service” with a straight face — insist the family is trying to balance compassion with reputational survival. Others, less inclined toward deference, suggest the whole episode simply proves the Windsor knack for insulating itself against the kind of accountability that would flatten lesser dynasties.
What is striking is the total absence of any coherent plan to draw a line under the saga. Palace aides have had half a decade to plot a rehabilitation strategy or a dignified withdrawal. Instead, the approach has been reactive, relying on the hope that another royal scandal will take the spotlight. Given recent history, that hope may not be entirely misplaced.
And so the cycle repeats: headlines flare up, sombre-faced commentators opine on the damage to the monarchy, the Palace issues a two-sentence statement, and the public either shrugs or fumes according to taste. By next week, the coverage may fade — until the next documentary, the next court document, or the next stray remark from a former associate reignites the whole thing.
The enduring lesson is that the House of Windsor has a unique ability to endure crises not by solving them, but by outlasting them. It is a tactic that has worked for centuries, aided by a loyal press contingent, a forgiving public, and an endless supply of ceremonial distraction. Whether it will work in an age where information is permanent and replayable on demand is another question entirely.
In the meantime, the Duke remains where he has been for years: officially invisible, unofficially ever-present, and at the mercy of a media cycle that refuses to let the past stay buried. The monarchy, as ever, carries on — not because it has addressed the problem, but because it has learned to live with it.
Main Image: – https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/6439944255/
