The scandal over Fergie's misconduct points to a mistake in the British view of Royals, argues Ruth Rees

The Royal Family: no Catholic model
OUT of all the media and public comment I've read and listened to during the latest Royal scandal, two recurring statements have stuck in my mind which should not go unchallenged, for both diminish the people of this country, and one insults them.
First, that the Royal Family is being described as the nation's model for religious and moral standards, and second that the public have no business to feel angry about the cavortings of some of its members because (and I quote), "let's face it, they're just like any other family, so why blame them for what we all do?"
On the first point, there are some five million of us Catholics who do not take our moral and religious standards from the Royal Family but from the Holy Family, yet no Catholic in public life has seen fit to mention this; a pity because it might focus a number of minds on Christian values and instil curiosity about the Church among those whose knowledge of it is minimal.
There seems to be a general fear of drawing attention to such an unfashionable concept as morality, possibly because the Queen herself has given no indication so far that this particular aspect of the tawdry situation is of prime importance to her, or to her subjects.
It might have reassured everyone if instead of blaming the press for publishing the revealing photos of her daughter-in-law, she had expressed regret that the Duchess of York's conduct had shocked and embarrassed the British people, as indeed it has done, and to ignore this fact shows a lack of respect towards them.
On the second point: as always, the intelligence and principles of the general public have been underestimated.
The great majority of Britons are good, decent men and women, trying hard to establish a wholesome home environment for themselves and their loved ones in a society where family life is under constant attack.
Of course everyone has domestic problems from time to time but it is a lie to allege that the dissolute behaviour of some Royals simply reflects that found in most British families.
Unfortunately, over the decades, un unrealistic set of virtues has been attributed to the royal family which has been nourished by a self-perpetuating sentimentality. The panoply of pomp that has grown-up around them has encouraged this, and perhaps the Dutch journalist who said last weekend that her impression is that the Royals want to he thought of as demi-gods is not too wide of the mark.
I remember reading a few years ago that Princess Margaret had been heard to say that her sister was Christ's representative in Britain. Perhaps she was joking, she is known to have a sharp wit. But it does underline the dangers of the Queen's position as Head of the Anglican church if by silence she is seen to condone flagrant impropriety among members of her own family.
Public outrage would undoubtedly not be so fierce if the Royal Family generally were not perceived to be completely out of touch with the mood of the times.
This is not the case in other European countries whose royal families, while still retaining dignity, have also demonstrated that they possess the indispensable quality of true nobility: the common touch. Only the Princess of Wales seems blessed with this gift. In Catholic nations, such as Spain, there is also the strong bond of a shared faith, and this results in the public not placing on their King and Queen the burden of worship that belongs only to God. Monarchs and subjects have a healthier relationship there than do we here.
It has been suggested that criticism of the Queen has been exacerbated by her continuing refusal to pay taxes and to curb the expenses of an ever-increasing family.
There does appear to be something terribly out of joint when wealth, privilege and power are flaunted in an age of such human poverty and suffering. As hospital after hospital closes wards or appeals for money to buy essential pieces of equipment; when many of our old people are in such dire need of help; when there is so much homelessness, and when most strikingly the public demonstrate such exceptional generosity themselves, it seems curious that the Royal Family do not make substantial public contributions out of their vast financial resources.
The Queen may well be generous to private charities, we do not know about this, but what is required is that she should be overtly so— for it would set an example to other British millionaires.
Meanwhile, we read the Queen is deeply distressed at the prospect of at least two divorces in her immediate family; her sorrow must be intensified because of her position as Head of the Anglican Church, but after all it was a Royal divorce that established it in the first place. How strange if some 445 years after the death of its founder, Henry VIII, that Church should be disestablished because of another Royal divorce. And would that possibly be a secret relief to the Queen?