Can the monarchy be preserved in the face of continual vilification?

A law on lese majesty seems un-British, but not so un-British as the press campaign which vilifies the monarchy to destruction

The British are not demonstrative. Our public formalities attain dignity through restraint, which is why the rest of the world so admires them. The Remembrance ceremony at the cenotaph is a case in point. Its solemn plangency is an evocation of Britishness. Yet a vital element of that Britishness is now under threat.

Yesterday, as the Queen paid her homage, there was a double poignancy. For a moment, we were not only remembering the fallen; we were fearing a terrible fall. Only 27 First World War veterans are still alive. If matters continue to deteriorate, the day will come where only 27 people still alive will remember the era when the monarchy was a respected institution. We could be on the verge of a national tragedy.

This is not Prince Charles's fault. That noble, complex and embattled figure has made only one serious mistake in his life: the proposal of marriage to Lady Diana Spencer. It was never likely that she would rest easy in her tomb. (If tomb it be. At the time of her funeral, there were rumours from well-connected sources in Northamptonshire that instead of reposing on a waterlogged island, the grave below the water table, she had been cremated, like her father.)

There is one grown-up life of the Princess, Diana in Search of Herself, by Sally Bedell Smith. In a dispassionate way, her book documents the extent to which the girl had profound psychological difficulties, probably incurable. Her brother's bitter letter, recently released by Paul Burrell, was further testimony to this. Even if Prince Charles was not the ideal husband for a wife with mental problems - though it is not clear who would have been - he did not create them.

But the problems were only part of the picture. The Princess possessed a lethal combination of beauty and charm. If she put her mind to it, no man, woman or beast could resist her appeal. She was also a manipulator of genius. She had an instinctive flair for sowing discord and creating division; by the end of her life, she was becoming increasingly ruthless in the way she deployed those gifts.

There was one explanation. Lacking in self-confidence, cripplingly insecure, she was also becoming intoxicated by the ease with which she could play upon public opinion. That was a dangerous power for a personality with such flawed foundations. It was not clear what she wanted to do to her husband: take revenge, inflict humiliation, or just toy with him. She may not have known her own intentions. But they would always have been destructive. No one since Henry VIII would have known how to deal with a princess like that. Her accidental death appeared to eliminate a threat to the monarchy.

It did not remove all the poison. Burrell, bewitched by her; Smith, exploited by her: the lesser victims of her Circean enchantments are still spreading anti-monarchical pestilence on her behalf.

This is so unfair to Prince Charles, who is a decent man with, if anything, an excessive sense of public duty. The Prince's Trust, the one area of his activities which has had insufficient publicity, has done remarkable work in encouraging entrepreneurship among racial minorities in the inner cities. The trust has an outstanding record in rebuilding self-esteem among those who had lost it and instilling the work ethic in those who never had it. The Department of Social Security has a great deal to learn from its success. We would be much better off if all the public money spent on similar ventures had been spent as wisely.

As for Prince Charles's opposition to Le Corbusier's disciples who have done so much to blight British cities, there is only one unfortunate aspect. It is a pity that he was not around a generation earlier, before so much damage had been done.

There is a pattern to all the Prince of Wales's activities. He identifies a problem. Then, gently but firmly, he applies pressure until notice is taken. The need for more Shakespeare in schools, for the Church of England to retain the sonorous glories of the authorised version and the 1662 Prayer Book: these may have been unfashionable causes, but his persistence has helped to put his opponents on the defensive. Yet there is a cost. Over his years of unfashionable advocacy, Prince Charles has made some influential enemies. It is easy to poke fun at his earnestness. Combined with the failure of his marriage, this has helped to create a negative image. But negativity has now reached new depths. The recent lies and recent calumnies went far beyond poking fun. The threat to Prince Charles is also a threat to the entire future of the Royal Family.

There is no obvious solution to all this. Sir Michael Peat has been criticised for putting out a statement which referred to George Smith's malignant fantasies. But if no denial had been issued, the infection would have continued to fester. The problem does not arise from the denial, but from the tabloid press's refusal to accept it. Indeed, the problem arises from the tabloid press.

There is a coalition of malevolence at the lower end of the tabloids, especially the Sunday ones. Some journalists hate the Royal Family and revel in every opportunity to add to its embarrassments. Some editors are so desperate to sell papers that they are oblivious the national interest. Their nightmare is a restoration of calm at Buckingham Palace: they would have no troubles to report, and considerable troubles of their own in lending credibility to their inventions.

There would appear to be no early hope of editorial slumbers being disturbed by such nightmares. Indeed, those of us who are devoutly loyal to the monarchy seem helpless in the face of the tabloids' malice. Yet something must be done to mobilise the monarchical majority in this country and to demand an end to journalistic irresponsibility. A law on lese majesty seems un-British, but not so un-British as a press campaign which ultimately vilifies the monarchy to destruction.

It is not clear how much more smearing by the tabloids the monarchy can absorb without being irretrievably damaged. There are deep roots in public affection and respect, but over time even the deepest roots can be poisoned. It would be equally foolish to assume that the young princes and their successors would be willing to do their duty if it became impossible to do so with any dignity.

At present, we are behaving like a household which has a cupboard full of valuable heirlooms, but also some undisciplined children. We do not want to see all the heirlooms smashed in pieces, nor are we prepared to lock the cupboard and keep the children out.

A great deal of heirloom crockery has already been smashed, which makes those who care about such matters wring their hands, yet nothing is done. We are confronted by a simple question. Which is more important to the British nation, the monarchy or the gutter press? If we do want to preserve the monarchy, it is time to decisive steps to preserve it.