David Dimbleby: Can William's 'ordinary Joe' approach win back more support for the monarchy?

I've spent much of my career commentating on royal occasions, and over the past two years I've been looking at the institution in close detail for a personal-view documentary series, interviewing former private secretaries and communications advisers, along with royal historians, friends of King Charles III and staunch anti-monarchists, trying to understand how it works and why it has had such a hold on Britain.

Now, polls suggest public approval is in decline.

When asked how important it was to continue having a monarchy, as part of the first British Social Attitudes survey back in 1983, 86% of people said it was "very important" or "quite important". In last year's survey, just 51% of people answered the same. The proportion of young people approving of the monarchy is lower still.

That's not to say that people want an elected head of state instead - a majority don't. And finding an elected President who could unite Scotland England Wales and Northern Ireland would, I suspect, be a good deal harder than some republicans think.

But the declining support marks a problem.

In 1983, 86% of people said it was "very important" or "quite important" to continue having a monarchy, as part of a British Social Attitudes survey. In last year's survey, 51% of people answered the same

"The only way the monarchy works is by everybody either being apathetic or feeling very affectionate towards it," argues Anna Whitelock, a professor of the history of monarchy at City, University of London.

"If those bonds are broken, there really is no purpose or point of monarchy."

Plenty of people might be quick to put the most recent threat to those bonds down to scandal. There is no love lost between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is now known, and the British public.

Only 4% of people had a "positive" view of him in a YouGov poll in October (the same month he was stripped of his titles), followed by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, with ratings of 30% and 21% respectively.

Yet no-one I spoke to while making these films pointed to any one individual as the sole reason for the current standing of the monarchy in the eyes of the public.

Only 4% of people had a "positive" view of Andrew in a YouGov poll in October, the same month he was stripped of his titles

I suspect the real challenge facing the Royal Family is the fundamental question of what it stands for in the modern world - a world radically different to the one Elizabeth II reigned over when she ascended the throne in 1952.

Even though there is evidence that suggests change is on the agenda, as the Prince of Wales acknowledged last month, what should he do, as heir to the throne - and what should King Charles do as reigning monarch - to win back more support for the institution?

Winning the 'oxygen of public support'

Three monarchs have been on the throne during my lifetime, and each understood that what matters is the impression they make on their subjects: their image.

As the journalist and editor Ian Hislop put it when I interviewed him for my documentary series, What's The Monarchy For? "They thrive on the oxygen of public support".

It is, ultimately, the key to their survival.

They surround themselves with people who know this too. Lord Janvrin was the private secretary to the late queen until 2007. "If you took public support for granted it would be a very bad day," he told me.

Prof Whitelock takes this a step further. "The Royal family is a brand," she explains. "There is always a sense of needing to keep the brand popular."

The Prince and Princess of Wales with their children at Westminster Abbey for the 'Together at Christmas' carol service

One of the boldest attempts the Royal Family has ever made to redefine its public image - and keep that brand popular - came back in 1969 when, for the first time, they invited cameras into the heart of family life.

The film, titled Royal Family, which was broadcast on BBC and ITV, was an attempt to try to humanise them.

The late queen was filmed in colour, buying a treat for a four-year-old Prince Edward in a shop, using money from her purse. "What are you going to have? A lolly?" she was filmed saying, briskly. "An ice cream," Edward replied.

As he settled in the front seat of the car, she suggested he might make a "gooey mess".

This documentary was, at the time, one of the boldest attempts the Royal Family had made to redefine its public image

There was a picnic scene too, with Prince Philip and the Princess Royal seen barbecuing sausages.

The public lapped it up. Across both transmissions it had almost twice as many viewers as the first moon landing when it broadcast.

Yet a few years later, the late queen is reported to have ordered that it should never be seen again.

Some reports have suggested there were copyright claims, though the Times also reported speculation that there were concerns, or even regrets about it being made.

A family portrait at Buckingham Palace in 1972

Certainly Princess Anne didn't mince her words about the recording. "I never liked the idea of the royal family film," she reportedly once said. "I always thought it was a rotten idea."

But it's a good example of how the Royal Family endeavour to present themselves as they want to be seen.

'The degree of control I think is staggering'

In September 2022, I was at Windsor to report on the final stages of Elizabeth II's funeral. The Palace issued instructions to the broadcasters about scenes that, once shown live, should never be shown again.

A number were quite small things, for example, the crown being handled, somebody looking visibly upset, Prince George touching his nose, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh's handkerchiefs, and, at the lying in state, shots of the Royal Family mouthing the Lord's Prayer.

These little excisions from reality - or "perpetuity edits," a kind of George Orwell speak - see them remove from the world anything they don't like.

On the one hand, they have the right to grieve in private; on the other, the late queen was our head of state and this is her public funeral. Do we have a right to see it all or do they have the right to control what we see?

"The degree of control I think is staggering," argues Prof Whitelock.

"If Downing Street were trying to control what's being broadcast, that would be reported upon, but if the Palace is intervening in what's being shown about certain things, why is that not seen as something that should be reported?"

However, a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace has said: "The events surrounding the funeral of Her Late Majesty were both State occasions and moments of profound personal sorrow for her loved ones. In striking the appropriate balance between those two factors, simple human decency pointed towards a sensitive and sympathetic approach so as not to intrude on elements of individual grief or personal religious observance.

"In particular, we do not believe it would have been fair or appropriate to focus on younger members of the family at a time of mourning."

Prince William and the e-scooter

Recently, Prince William joined forces with Canadian actor and comedian Eugene Levy for an episode of his travel comedy series that aired last month.

Mr Levy appeared particularly amused to see his entrance - zipping around Windsor Castle on an e-scooter.

"It gets around quite nicely," the Prince explained, later adding: "I'm always late so I thought this was a way to keep my meetings on time." He chatted on about which of Levy's films he had enjoyed. ("All of the American Pies!")

A bright idea - the image getting across is that William is just an ordinary Joe.

The social media posts that Prince William and his family share to their 17.1 million followers have a similar approach, with many showing them off-duty, with videos shot in woods, on sand dunes. One shows the Princess of Wales sharing her relief at having finished chemotherapy treatment, and reflecting on the importance "of simply loving and being loved".

British "adman" Rory Sutherland, who has spent 37 years in the heart of the advertising world, currently as vice-chairman of Ogilvy, fully approves of the Waleses' approach to striking a more modern tone.

"I think he's walked the line, which is a very narrow line between modernity and kind of absurdity extremely well," he says of Prince William. "It is a very delicate path to tread."

It is, he adds, far less crude than one memorable attempt by the generation before him, when Prince Edward, Princess Anne and Andrew took part in It's a Royal Knockout charity tournament in 1987, presiding over teams of celebrities who wore costumes and did challenges like lobbing ham at each other.

And it seems to be resonating. Prince William and Catherine have public approval ratings of 76% and 73% respectively - higher than all other family members in last month's YouGov survey.

Prince William and Catherine have strong public approval ratings of 76% and 73% respectively, a YouGov poll suggests

Prof Whitelock, though positive about Prince William and his fellow senior Royals' attempts to seem more accessible, is less sure about whether that is enough to modernise the institution as a whole.

"If the monarchy is really to modernise in a significant way, we need to see much more transparency, much more accountability," she argues.

Tax, politics and royal lifestyles

In talking to people as research for my documentary, there seem to me to be other factors, which are potential stumbling blocks to fuller public support.

First, the fact that the monarch is not legally obliged to pay income tax or capital gains tax on his personal income, because the relevant laws do not apply to the Crown, and only does so voluntarily - and that he was not legally obliged to pay inheritance tax after the death of his mother.

"I think the best way to make those concessions is voluntarily rather than under duress. It's a better look certainly," says Rory Sutherland.

A spokesperson for Kensington Palace has also said that the Prince of Wales voluntarily pays the top rate of income and capital gains tax on all his personal income, including receipts from the Duchy.

No explanation was given, when asked for the documentary series, as to why the Prince of Wales has chosen not to follow his father's example of publishing his tax returns since inheriting the role.

King Charles is not legally obliged to pay income tax or capital gains tax but does so voluntarily

Second, the fact that the monarch has the right to be consulted on proposed legislation that may affect the Crown and can ask to be excluded from it.

The question of whether the monarch takes up this right, or the extent to which it may or may not have an impact, are other matters - some have argued that the right in itself gives any monarch potential to influence.

Then there is their lifestyle - particularly when many people in the country face a cost of living crisis.

Mr Sutherland does not believe the fact the royals live in palaces to be something the public particularly cares about. But he adds: "I always thought that skiing holidays are a bit of a bad look."

Of course there is the economic case of the sheer amount of money that the Royal Family brings to the UK thanks to tourism - but Mr Sutherland argues that while "you can emphatically make an economic case", it is not the right way to justify the royal's continued existence.

How European monarchies work

Prince William has been forthright in stating that he has change in mind.

"I think it's safe to say that change is on my agenda… Not overly radical, but changes that I think need to happen," he told Mr Levy.

He also said: "There are points when you look at tradition and go, is that still fit for purpose today? Is that still the right thing to do? Are we still doing and having the most impact we could be having?

"So I like to question things, is what I'm really getting at."

'I think it's safe to say that change is on my agenda,' Prince William has said

It remains unclear exactly what he means by this. Whether it is simply fewer courtiers, a bit less ceremony, no more people calling him sir, or bowing. Or is it possible William envisages much more of a rethink?

There has been some debate over the years about whether or not there is merit in a bigger shift: in making the British Royal Family more in line with the Dutch royal family, or the Scandinavian ones with a much more informal and modest style.

Prof Whitelock for one believes certain parts of it could well appeal to the prince. "I don't think the idea of dressing up in all the stuff for the coronation is something that appeals to him."

But it comes with risks. "Those who really support the monarchy like all that comes with it, so if we got to a point where we it looks like the Scandinavian monarchies that don't have big coronations… some people might say 'what's the point now'?

"If people are asked what defines Britain," she adds, "I'm sure before too long you do get to the monarch."

The Dutch royal family - King Willem-Alexander attended schools in the Netherlands but finished his secondary education at Atlantic College in Wales

Graham Smith, chief executive of pressure group, Republic, is one of those (albeit in a UK minority) who argue that no amount of reform would be enough to win his approval.

"You should not have that family in that position of privilege and status," he tells me. "They are just a bunch of very ordinary people, who just happen to be related to people who, hundreds of years ago, built big castles and won a few battles.

"Essentially, it's a ridiculous institution, which… has no justification."

Many people find having a Royal Family consoling and representative of the United Kingdom

I put to him that over half the country don't think it's ridiculous - many people find it consoling and representative of the United Kingdom, maybe something better than politicians. The newspapers are full of talk about monarchy too.

"Yes there is an audience," he says pointedly. "But there's also an audience for the Kardashians and David Beckham."

A masterclass in reinvention

I still remember firsthand one of the Royal Family's low points. It was a Sunday in 1997 and I received the news that Diana, Princess of Wales had been killed in the crash in Paris. I was working at the BBC at the time and we were summoned to cover what had happened.

We had no inkling at the time what the public response would be - but it was soon clear that something astonishing was happening.

There was an outpouring of popular grief. The press started reporting that thousands of people in London were bringing flowers to Kensington Palace but that the Royal Family had remained up in Balmoral and were not responding.

Lord Janvrin was in Balmoral with the late queen. "A choice had to be made between looking after the two young princes and getting back to London."

Yet the public criticism was sharp. It was a lesson in the cruel demands of monarchy on those who belong to it. And a lesson to never again get behind the story.

Support for the monarchy had already been declining. The year after Diana's death, it dipped further, with just 63.5% of people saying it was important for Britain to have a monarchy, according to the British Attitudes Survey.

It took time for the approval ratings to climb back to their previous levels – but eventually they did, reaching 75% by 2012.

It shows that this institution can recover from disapproval.

The present and the future of the monarchy: King Charles III and the Prince of Wales

"It is highly, highly culturally adaptive," says Mr Sutherland, "and obviously an 18th century monarchy might look absurd to us today but at the time it was permanently effectively adapting to changed circumstances, which is one of the reasons it is still around and lots of monarchies aren't."

No matter what changes Prince William makes - nor Prince George after him - the bigger question of what becomes of the monarchy in the distant future may not be theirs to decide.

The monarchy's existence thrives on the "oxygen of public support", so it is the public themselves who will decide through that support whether having this kind of head of state continues to suit us as a country.

David Dimbleby's documentary series, What's the Monarchy For? starts on Tuesday 2 December on BBC1 and BBC iPlayer

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published - click here to find out how.