Royal Family as Soap Opera: A.N. Wilson Looks at a Modern Monarchy

A.N. Wilson argues that the Royal Family has become a “ridiculous soap opera” that the public cannot ignore, even as some of its most infamous figures are revealed in new light. In a column for the Daily Mail, the veteran commentator says he still feels sympathy for Prince Harry, but finds Andrew and Fergie’s conduct—described as “guzzling and fornication”—beyond belief. The piece frames recent royal moments, from a televised admission of illness to an ongoing public-relations saga, as evidence of a royal narrative that mirrors contemporary culture rather than defies it.

Wilson ties the current mood to a shift in how the monarchy is perceived, noting King Charles’s Christmas broadcast about his cancer treatment as a moving moment that deepens the public’s sense of vulnerability at the top. The Channel 4 program that aired the King’s remarks helped redefine a relationship previously built on the idea of near-perfection. In the past, Royals were seen as unassailable symbols; now, their frailty is part of the national conversation. The walk to church at Sandringham remains a Christmas ritual, but the household’s internal dynamics—who attends, who returns to private life, and how openly illness and duty are balanced—are now part of the national spectacle.

Wilson emphasizes that the Royals are not only a family but a public project that has long depended on a carefully crafted image. The essay traces the genesis of the so-called Ideal Family to Prince Albert, who, alongside Queen Victoria, embraced photography as a tool to present a middle-class, relatable royal household. Albert’s strategy paid dividends in the short term by offering a wholesome model during a time of republican sentiment, but Wilson argues it also planted seeds of later conflict. The Victorian fantasy, he writes, required later generations to contend with “the very reverse of ideal,” including a Prince of Wales famed for a Paris-era sexual life and a queen who staged a deeply personal legacy within a public framework—an irony that echoed through the ages as the family’s private lives collided with public expectations.

The column notes that the modern era accelerated the monarchy’s transformation into a soap opera, a label once deemed unseemly for a royal institution. The press, which once shied away from unflattering details, began to chronicle marriages, separations, and scandals with unprecedented regularity. Wilson points to controversies surrounding Sarah Ferguson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, including their links to Jeffrey Epstein, and the way those revelations reshaped public perception of the family’s entitlement and behavior. He also references investigative reports and biographies that have kept the Tony-and-Townsend era in the public eye, reinforcing the sense that the royals’ failures have become inseparable from their public duty.

The piece also reflects on the recent public rupture between Prince Harry and Prince William, as well as the broader media cycle that has followed Oprah Winfrey’s interview and Harry’s memoir Spare. Wilson argues that the once-hidden theater of royal life—private tragedies, illnesses, and the occasional “squeaky-clean” image—has been replaced by a continuous, highly commercialized narrative. The press’s willingness to publish intimate details, from illnesses to family squabbles, marks a sea change in how the monarchy is consumed: not as a distant symbol of national identity, but as a living, sometimes messy, reflex of the society it purports to guide.

Yet Wilson stops short of cynicism. He concedes that the royals themselves have become more relatable precisely because their flaws are laid bare. He praises the King’s candor about his cancer and the way the royal family continues to carry out its duties amid illness. He suggests that the ongoing drama—the public reckonings, the reconciliations, the tensions—has, paradoxically, deepened the monarchy’s relevance. The family’s missteps are not merely scandals; they are a mirror for a nation that recognizes its own imperfections in the people who carry the crown.

The column closes with a meditation on Shakespearean drama: tragedy and comedy, disgrace and redemption, exist side by side. The Royally inflected narrative, Wilson argues, is less a fall from grace and more a reflection of a modern culture that demands honesty, vulnerability, and accountability from its icons. The once-imperial image of the Royal Family has become, in his view, a complicated but honest reflection of a society that no longer gilds its leaders in myth. The result, he implies, is a culture where public fascination with the royals is less about perfection and more about connection—and the shared sense of humanity that comes with watching a dynasty navigate its own imperfections.