Stop hounding the Queen - she is not responsible for others' mistakes

The monarchy is popular. It is strong. It is the most golden of all the golden threads of British history

It would be absurd to blame the Queen for the collapse of the Burrell trial. She cannot be held responsible for the failures of policemen and lawyers. Nor is it the case that her testimony would have been bound to halt the prosecution.

On the contrary: the motive power behind that prosecution was the claim that Mr Burrell had been selling his late employer's property. That is what the police told Prince Charles; that is what the young Princes may have been led to believe. If it had been the case, Mr Burrell's talks with the Queen would have made matters worse for him, not better. A royal servant would have been lying to the Monarch in an attempt to conceal his own thefts and breach of trust. That ought to have earned him a heavier sentence, had it been true. As it was untrue, there should never have been a prosecution.

In the absence of sales of goods, no serious charge could have been laid against Mr Burrell. The Princess of Wales was impulsive, erratic and given to mood-swings. She could well have said something to him at one moment which she had no intention of meaning when she reconsidered the matter later. There might also have been genuine doubt about her wishes; memories of years-old conversations are notoriously unreliable. In the absence of evidence that he had destroyed, sold or seriously misused valuable items which did not belong to him, Mr Burrell could not have been guilty of anything more than muddle and dubious propriety. De minimis non curat lex – the law does not concern itself with trifles.

So why were the charges brought? Here, the police's role ought to come under scrutiny; the evidence suggests that senior officers were guilty of serious errors of judgement. It may be that some of them were ready to suspend caution and leap into action when responding to complaints from the Spencer family. It may also be – more likely in the modern police service – that some policemen were ready to suspend caution when they saw the chance of a high-profile trial. At a time when many police forces seem to be trying to decriminalise burglary, some policemen obviously believe that publicity is a better career priority than protecting the public. Steps ought to be taken to persuade them otherwise.

It is known that Prince Charles was unhappy about the decision to prosecute Mr Burrell. Who better than he to understand the confusion which the late Princess of Wales could cause: the melodramas which she could create. Upset by her death, a servant who was close to her might have done things which should not have been done. But the Prince's instincts were for compassion and mercy.

Hence the importance of the police's claim that Mr Burrell was selling stolen goods. That is not easy to condone, and even if the Prince had been tempted to do so and tried to use influence to avert a prosecution, he knew perfectly well what would have happened next. There would have been a leak – there often is, with the modern police service – leading to the inevitable headlines: "Palace in Cover-up Scandal. Prince Intervenes to Protect Thieving Servant". The impression would rapidly have been given that the Prince of Wales did not care what was happening to his former wife's possessions, no doubt because he was far more preoccupied with Mrs Parker-Bowles. As so often with recent events, the Royal Family could not have won, whatever they did.

It might still have been worth considering whether an establishment fix was possible. But there would have been two problems with that. The first is the absence of an establishment fixer. There has been no one capable of discharging that role since the death of Lord Goodman. Arnold Goodman could move effortlessly in every milieu of power, dispensing charm, but also conveying a hint of formidable legal menace.

Yet even if there were a contemporary Goodman, he would find it much harder to operate, because the press has become so irreverent. It would take more than a hint of legal menace to restrain today's media. A lot of popular newspapers enjoy destroying people, and their appetites grow with success as do their ambitions. Politicians and television presenters have proved to be easy game, so some of the press have been eager to move onto harder targets, such as Princes. The Earl and Countess of Wessex have been the first victims. A harmless, dutiful and attractive young couple, they have been subjected to vile persecution and innuendo; again, anything which they do is used against them.

Up to now, however, there has always been a limit. Whatever the fate of minor members of the Royal Family, the Queen herself has been a protected species. As a result of the Burrell dégringolade, that no longer seems to be the case – and the Queen has a further problem. Her successes earlier this year created resentments in quarters which now see a chance for revenge.

A number of left-wing commentators could barely wait for the jubilee to fail. But it was a triumph. They had hoped that with the passing of the Queen Mother, much of the awe and reverence would also pass away from the monarchy. It did not. The paying of respects to a dead queen was also accompanied by a massive reaffirmation of respect for her daughter. In republican commentating circles, all this was greeted with a gnashing of teeth. The evidence that the monarchy had deep roots in public affection was most unwelcome.

That explains the enthusiasm with which some of those commentators are now pouring weedkiller on those roots. The aim is to inflict lasting damage on the Queen, and on the institution of monarchy. In this, the republicans have been abetted by some so-called constitutional experts. But anyone who cannot tell the difference between a constitutional crisis and a cock-up has no right to be considered as an expert on anything.

It was a cock-up, even though the Queen was blameless, but cock-ups pass. If the palace officials can only keep their nerve, this story will soon join the other already forgotten misfortunes of the anni horribiles. After all, the monarchy did seem to be under threat while the Princess of Wales was alive, as it also did in the immediate aftermath of her death. She had not yet learned how to cope with the enormous influence which she could exercise over public opinion, but all the evidence suggested that she intended to use it to damage the standing of her former husband and his relations.

Five years later, the Princess of Wales is at rest and the monarchy presses on. Around the time of her funeral, even the most fervent monarchical optimist would have feared that her death would cast a long enough shadow to blight the jubilee itself. That proved not to be the case.

The monarchy is popular. It is strong. It is the most golden of all the golden threads of British history. It has survived worse than this in the past, and will no doubt do so again in the future. It is time for everyone to calm down and to stop hounding the Queen.