LONDON
By any recent measure, 2025 has been an uncomfortable year for Britain’s monarchy. While the institution remains constitutionally secure, it has faced sustained public scrutiny over its relevance, accountability, and moral authority.
Health concerns surrounding the king, unresolved family divisions, and the long shadow of scandal have combined to test an institution whose defining promise is stability.
Few observers are better placed to assess these pressures than Robert Hardman, the veteran royal biographer and chronicler of the modern monarchy.
In a wide-ranging interview with Anadolu, he offers a measured but unsparing account of how the crown is adapting and where it still struggles.
No issue has loomed larger than the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein affair and its consequences for the former Prince Andrew, now officially known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
Andrew, 65, the younger brother of King Charles III and second son of Queen Elizabeth, has faced sustained criticism in recent years for his behavior and his ties to the late Epstein, a convicted sex offender.
The king stripped Andrew of his princely title and removed him from his official residence amid ongoing scrutiny of his links to Epstein.
“What the Andrew scandal has shown is that the monarchy will be and can be very tough and very brutal when it needs to be,” said Hardman.
“What we've seen is Andrew had not told the whole truth about his relationship with Epstein. When that became clear, the king was very angry. And I think Andrew, I think everybody, was surprised just by how emphatic he was, taking away all his titles, everything.”
Behind the scenes, the move reportedly reflected more than personal anger.
Years of public criticism had increasingly framed the monarchy as reluctant to confront misconduct within its own ranks. By formally removing Andrew’s remaining royal status and privileges, Charles signaled a break from that perception.
“It is a reminder that … the institution is more important than one's own kind of family relations,” Hardman said.
Reforms embraced and deferred
Debate over the monarchy’s legitimacy in a modern democracy has grown louder, particularly as younger generations question inherited privilege.
Asked which reforms the royal family has genuinely embraced, Hardman pointed to a decisive but often overlooked change, under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who died in 2022.
“The really big one in my lifetime was in 2013, when they changed the Law of Succession,” he said. “People forget about it now, but it was a really big deal at the time, because up until then, boy trumped girl.”
The reform was driven as much by symbolism as by fairness.
He explained that if the monarch had “three royal daughters in a row, but if a boy came along, he would then take priority. And that was, I think, an awkward message for the institution in the 21st century.”
This change, he said, “had to come from the government. It's laid down by law. It's not just something the queen could do, but obviously she had to be consulted.”
Hardman said the prospect of Prince William – the heir apparent to the throne – and Catherine, princess of Wales, starting a family sharpened the urgency.
“What was going to happen if, say, they had a girl and then a boy, and the boy jumped ahead of the girl, that would send the very wrong message,” he said.
Money issue
For all the cultural and constitutional debate surrounding the monarchy, the most persistent criticism remains financial.
Questions about cost, transparency, and value for the money have grown sharper as Britain struggles with high costs of living and strained public services, including millions of families low on the economic ladder.
Although the royal family’s funding is governed by formal mechanisms – most notably the Sovereign Grant, which is tied to the profits of the Crown Estate – acknowledging these arrangements has not ended public unease.
Many Britons continue to conflate royal wealth with public money, and the scale of ceremonial expenditures often fuels the perception of excess.
Hardman said this is a long-standing concern, adding: “Money is the big issue. They've always got to worry about the money.”
Soft power and hard diplomacy
At a time when Britain’s global role is being reassessed, the monarchy’s diplomatic value has come back into focus. Hardman argued that the crown remains a unique asset, especially in managing strained relationships.
“You look back over the years, and the monarchy has been very important to generally sort of diplomacy, but particularly with the relationship between London and Washington.”
Historical symbolism still matters, said Hardman.
Recalling a US presidential visit from 1982, he said: “Everyone remembers the picture of the queen riding in Windsor Park with Ronald Reagan. I mean, that's that was when things were going really well.”
Yet the monarchy’s usefulness is most apparent during periods of disagreement.
“There had been times when Britain and America have been in difficult positions, like the Suez Crisis in 1956 or the war in Vietnam … What the monarchy can do is, it's very good at helping to build bridges when they've been issues.”
Also, after Brexit, that soft power was deliberately deployed. “What did the palace do? Well … every single member state of the EU got a royal visit,” he said.
The goal, Hardman said, is not policy alignment but human connection. “The monarch helps to give this message: ‘Look, we may disagree politically or financially or whatever, but there are some things we have in common'.”
This diplomatic utility was vividly illustrated earlier this year when Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his first White House visit to President Donald Trump.
Starmer came with an advantage unavailable to most elected leaders. Producing a personal letter from King Charles, he extended an invitation for a second state visit – an unprecedented gesture.
As Starmer explained, “This is really special. It’s never been done before.” The effect was immediate. Trump, visibly pleased and an avowed fan of royal pomp, accepted on the spot, praising Britain and signaling warmth towards the relationship.
Charles, faith, and a changing Britain
Perhaps the most underestimated dimension of Charles’s reign is his approach to religion in a transformed society.
“I think he's always been very he's always been interested in other faiths, probably more than more than any monarch we've ever had,” Hardman said.
Charles’ engagement with Islam predates his accession to the throne by decades.
“I remember he … made a very important speech back in 1993-94 … (on) Islam and the West,” said Hardman. “He's been involved in setting up a center for Islamic studies at Oxford University. He's certainly the first monarch we've ever had who can write his name in Arabic.”
For Charles, the monarchy’s religious role must reflect demographic reality, with a Britain that bears little resemblance to the country Elizabeth II inherited in 1952.
Then, Britain had only about 21,000 Muslims, but now has nearly 4 million, making Islam the UK’s second-largest faith.
Charles has “a very strong faith of his own, but he has a great appreciation and sympathy for other faiths, and I think he views (this as) one of the key roles of the monarchy, because Britain has been through a huge demographic change," Hardman said.
"It was a monocultural, basically Anglican churchgoing society when the queen came to the throne in 1952, and when she died, it's very much a multicultural society,” he explained.
In modern Britain, he said, “most people don't go to church at all and there are millions of people of other faiths who look to the monarchy to … sort of protect their rights.”
King Charles, he said, “sees that role (as) very important.”
