The problem for the Royal family is less the information itself, but how it has been released.
That it required a rare NAO investigation makes the palace look opaque, reluctant and less committed to transparency than it professes to be.
The NAO has trawled through 130 documents and required two “teach-in” tours by the Crown Estate and Royal Household to untangle the complications of homing and re-homing the Royal family and its staff.
The information will soon be subject to a far more heated, probably critical, inquiry from the public accounts committee.
It was made necessary by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his “siege of Royal Lodge”, which drew such public ire that it put his entire family under the spotlight.
His arrangements make for dramatic headlines, and will land heavily in the court of public opinion.
Era of poking is upon us
In a world where the King’s brother is being investigated by police for misconduct in public office, the palace must show it is willing and able to provide accurate, open, documentary evidence of anything that could impugn its reputation further.
A lack of open scrutiny does not serve anyone; nor does an instinct to cite “privacy” at all costs.
Bagehot’s 1897 text, entitled The English Constitution and considered as close to a Bible by traditional monarchists, suggested that “secrecy is…essential to the utility of English royalty as it now is”.
“Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it.”
The age of reverence is over and the era of poking is long upon us.
The monarchy will survive this scandal mostly unscathed. But it would be wise to reflect on how much of it is of its own making.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.telegraph.co.uk ’
