A.N. Wilson: The Royal Family Has Become a 'Ridiculous Soap Opera' We Can't Quit Watching

A.N. Wilson, writing in the Daily Mail, says the Royal Family has become a "ridiculous soap opera" that many Britons cannot resist watching. He says he has sympathy for Prince Harry but finds Andrew and Fergie’s past conduct "beyond belief." He also notes a Channel 4 broadcast earlier this month featuring the King discussing his cancer treatment and urging people to get checked, calling it a moving moment that reshaped the nation's view of the royals. The column frames the moment as part of a broader shift in how the public relates to the monarchy: away from an idealized symbol toward a family made up of frailty and imperfection.

Wilson argues that the public’s Christmas rituals and the Sandringham walk to church remain, but the public watches with different eyes. The King is said to be anxious to keep Sandringham traditions alive, while the inner circle of trusted relatives includes Princess Margaret’s children, Lord Snowdon, and the Chatto siblings. He suggests the monarch's quiet study time after public duties is, in a sense, what being Royal looks like in the present era. He notes the absence of Harry and Meghan in certain moments and speculates about nearer-term family dynamics.

Wilson traces the concept of the Royal Family as a public ideal to Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, who embraced photography to cultivate an "Ideal Family" image in the 19th century. The author contends this was a strategic move to bolster social norms around monogamy and loyalty. He acknowledges that the invention created tensions when private life diverged from the image, citing 19th-century episodes: the Prince of Wales’s alleged escapades, Princess Louise’s unconventional marriage and affair, and other scandals that later required cover-ups. He adds that this year, the piece suggests, Queen Victoria may have had a child with John Brown, illustrating the gap between image and reality. The piece then connects those historical strains to contemporary revelations about Sarah Ferguson and Andrew's ties to Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the broader barrage of royal disclosures.

The op-ed notes that the press in the 20th century shifted away from publishing exclusively flattering stories. It cites the 2011 publication of the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts and subsequent investigations and biographies. It argues the press has gradually acknowledged the royals' missteps and finances as matters of public interest. It also references Meghan and Harry’s Oprah Winfrey interview and Charles and Camilla’s relationship, the Spare memoir by Prince Harry, and ongoing disputes within the family. Wilson contends that these events fit into the soap-opera frame, yet they also reveal a more human monarchy.

The column underscores the public’s evolving tolerance for openings about illness and vulnerability. It points to Kate Middleton speaking publicly about the realities of parenthood and illness, as well as King Charles’s broadcast about his cancer and his appeals to support cancer charities. Wilson frames this openness as a sign that the monarchy is no longer shielded from human frailty, and that this exposure, while painful, provides a different kind of relevance for the Crown. The piece closes by noting how the royal family’s public misfortunes—spats, scandals, and medical battles—have not destroyed their role but rather redefined it.

The article ends with a meditation on the paradox of Prince Albert’s original intention and the public's current reception: the ideal family image was meant to strengthen society, but the exposure of flaws has instead deepened the monarchy’s function by making it more relatable. Wilson invokes Shakespeare, arguing that comedy and tragedy, disgrace and redemption, exist side by side in the royal narrative as they do in life. He suggests that the modern public’s critical eye is not a rejection but a recognition of a monarchy that mirrors a flawed nation—reflective, mortal, and forever evolving.