Has politicians’ ‘no-comment’ approach to the royals had its day?

“You might think this is about Andrew,” a senior Whitehall figure wonders aloud.

“But record this in your diary as a turning point in the relationship between the Palace and Parliament.”

Will this royal mess herald a new era? And despite traditionally refusing to comment, might politicians be quicker to point out the monarchy’s flaws and more willing to call it out?

“Nice try!” This was the response of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson when asked by journalists about the issue: original, disastrous interview Until 48 hours ago, we were with the man who took the title of Prince Andrew in 2019.

This sums up the response over the years. Ministers would rather do almost anything than talk about this saga.

“It was more than just being allergic – you were going into a no-win scenario,” recalls a former No 10 official. “You either incur the wrath of the Palace, or you appear to be defending the indefensible.”

The avoid-if-possible tactic wasn’t just related to the long-running Andrew saga. For many years, it has been general custom for senior politicians who want to get close to the government to keep their lips diplomatically tight-lipped about the royal family, except for soft praise or quiet murmurings of support.

And the convention worked both ways; The Royal Family has never spoken publicly about political matters. Polite nods in either direction were the order of the day. It was done on purpose: “Don’t upset the Queen, don’t upset the King.”

It is difficult to think of other areas in our political system where the same kind of unwritten rules exist. The former No 10 source says the prime minister is rarely told not to do something, but when it comes to royals, aides and officials are “pre-programmed” to give advice: don’t get involved.

Of course, there have always been notable exceptions.

Former Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn is a republican and has questioned whether the royal family should be downsized.

Boris Johnson infuriates the Palace Closed Parliament for weeksHe is suspected of trying to stop MPs trying to block his ambition to take Britain out of the EU. For the Palace, this overtly political action was extremely disturbing.

David Cameron was hit on the knuckles as he claimed the late queen “purred” on the phone line when he told her about the result of the Scottish referendum.

Zack Polanski, leader of the Greens, told me that they are a republican party and that there are many proud republicans in the ranks of Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, but these are not the parties’ official positions.

The truth is that for those in power or close to power, monarchy is not only a fact of political life, but also part of it. Why? Remember, the crown is depicted on the letterheads of government documents, on the front of our laws, and is stamped on the side of ministers’ red boxes. The government is His Majesty’s administration.

Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And it’s not just abstract. Senior politicians who attend the Privy Council will see the monarch regularly. The Prime Minister famously has an “audience”, or one-on-one conversation, with the King every week.

The government and the Palace are therefore fundamentally interconnected through process and personalities. Insiders emphasize that these real relationships are another reason not to intervene.

But there is no doubt that there has been a bolder appetite in Parliament over the last few weeks. The cascading revelations about Andrew’s behavior have led to an unusual level of chatter. We have seen MPs trying to change the law so that they lose their titles.

Liberal Democrats They considered using their time in the House of Commons to discuss increasing pressure. And the powerful Public Accounts Committee is demanding answers about Andrew paying just one pound. Black pepper for rent at his home in Windsor. Even though his brother called the transport vans, PAC is still waiting for answers to his questions. Depending on the answers they receive, they may launch a larger investigation into financial tracking.

Although this seems unlikely, MPs on the committee could call Andrew to give evidence to them.

American politicians have threatened to do the same, and UK Trade Secretary Chris Bryant said on Friday morning: He must participate when asked, as any “decent man” would.

It is hard to imagine that even a few weeks ago such comments would have escaped the lips of any member of the British government.

The nature of the allegations – and likely the Palace’s hesitation over a long period of time to take bolder action – changed the mood, reflecting public attitudes, as politicians often do.

“The truth is that we are very supportive of the Royal Family and the King,” an opposition source said. “But so many of the people we spoke to by knocking on doors were so unhappy that we felt this needed to be addressed.”

Discomfort with royal behavior had spread far beyond those who regularly criticized the monarchy; It “sent shockwaves” when Robert Jenrick and Sir Ed Davey raised the issue.

Sources suggest that messages from the government are also being conveyed silently. One said: “‘people […] Politely telling the Palace that it’s not going to happen and that’s difficult – for the government to say ‘well, it’s not going to go’ – will be part of it.”

At the same time, royal anger has been incredibly convenient for the government this week; Chancellor Rachel Reeves made headlines as her behavior was questioned.

During the royal scandals, a former No 10 official told me: “You breathe a sigh of relief while the media goes crazy over something else.”

By his own admission, Reeves broke the rules. He didn’t get his story right in the beginning. If the king had made his decision a few days earlier or a few days later, the chancellor’s embarrassment might have turned into a bigger scandal.

It would be wrong to say that it was the politicians who sent Andrew packing. The king was unusually constrained. Andrew’s behavior has caused discomfort for years. Claim after claim.

A few weeks ago Virginia Giuffre’s family He appeared on my show and said Lord Mandelson should never have been the UK ambassador to the US.

But one source says the role of Parliament and politicians is important. Another Whitehall insider told me that the incident started in Parliament and that the House there “will be aware that this is becoming a bigger problem”.

While the monarch is of course technically the biggest boss, Parliament writes the checks through what is known as the Sovereign Grant and has the power to scrutinize the Palace’s expenses.

So what happens now? Some MPs may have a taste for putting pressure on the royal family. There is the possibility of a full-scale investigation into Andrew’s finances. There are already calls for discussion regarding Andrew’s removal from the line of succession. This requires a change in the law. It is not an attractive prospect for a weak government to pursue such a highly controversial business.

But one insider told me: “There have been a lot of politicians in both chambers for years who have wanted to get into this and now Andrew has opened the door a crack and now they can throw it wide open and get in.”

Perhaps royal squabbles will become a more regular part of our political life.

The approach, described by another former Downing Street figure as “blankets and stuff, we can’t comment”, may have become obsolete.

BBC In Depth It’s the home of the best analysis on website and app, with new perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on the biggest issues of the day. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you when an InDepth story is published – Click here to learn how.