For the first time in his life, King Charles got the reviews he deserved. His performance in the United States in April was by general acclaim a tour de force, particularly in his delivery of a nicely crafted speech that had his audience rising repeatedly in ovation. Success in the presence of Donald Trump has traditionally required a butler-like quality, demonstrated ably by our prime minister in the days he and the president were getting on. Not for our king, who delivered what the Americans call a “roasting” with ironic deprecation and proper comic timing.

The fervour of the media applause is unlikely to have surprised him, for he has received it ever since he appeared before the public in his pram. One of the rules of British media has been to treat official utterances of the royal family with unqualified praise. Every speech is to be reported as if from a Nobel mind, each passing remark as Wildean wit. The difference this time was that he was objectively good.

This is not to say that King Charles has had an easy ride. If his public persona has been glossed, his private life has not. While dutifully recording his good works, the more popular newspapers have given us chapter and verse on his less endearing idiosyncrasies and on the breakdown of his first marriage. Those of us who submitted to our poorer selves and listened to the tape of his conversation with his then-mistress and now queen, Camilla – brought to light by the Sunday Mirror in 1993, four years after it happened – can never unhear it.

There has long been this ambivalent approach by the British press. The broadsheets tended to obey the celebrated dictum of the 19th century writer on the constitution, Walter Bagehot, that mystery must surround the British monarchy: “We must not let in daylight upon magic.” The tabloids admired more the direction attributed to the American judge Louis Brandeis: “If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”

Which takes us, of course, to the King’s brother, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, currently under virtual house arrest in an estate cottage in Sandringham, Norfolk, with only private security for company. His progress through public life did not go unexamined – the Mail on Sunday reported 19 years ago claims that he had “groped” a young woman at the Jeffrey Epstein New York townhouse and in 2011 the News of the World pictured him strolling in Central Park with Epstein – but his royal status, guarded by zealous officials, conferred protection from closer scrutiny. Before we are too hard on our press, we should remember it was a period when successive governments were happy to have him playing trade envoy.

It has been famously hard to penetrate royal defences. That disastrous appearance on BBC Newsnight happened only after weeks of negotiation and survived the TV crew’s dread that Andrew’s private office would halt things at any moment. Happily, the then-prince was too stupid to realise he was incriminating himself. His interview positioned him in the public imagination somewhere between contempt and ridicule. If he had responded more sensibly, could he have put Epstein behind him and survived the release of the emails that followed? Many prominent Americans have, despite the fabled power of their press.

Perhaps our papers are learning the limits of deference. Members of the royal household who have worked so hard to protect their charges have lost power. Can the press create from these unhappy events a new relationship between the media and the royal family, one that is respectful of the office but does not fawn on the office-holders? There are signs already of more intelligent inquiry. No matter is off limits. We are seeing perfectly intelligent questions not only about Andrew’s siblings’ knowledge of his activities, but also about their late mother’s response to the problem. It is no longer regarded as lese-majesty to ask them.

The media are following the royal family itself in making a division between the “good” royals – the King, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Princess Royal – and the ones who are now beyond the pale: Andrew, his former wife, Harry and Meghan (Andrew’s daughters Beatrice and Eugenie could go either way). King Charles has reinforced the diplomatic benefit that can come from a constitutional monarchy. Let us see reporting that does not yaw constantly from the slavish to the sensational.
KF