Leading Article: Family values

YESTERDAY'S publication, in the Daily Mirror and elsewhere, of photographs of the Duchess of York cavorting topless with her American 'financial adviser', John Bryan, in the south of France has further embarrassed the Royal Family and exasperated those who were not merely amused by, or indifferent to, her antics. Many will say it is all the fault of the press: if the photographs had not been sneakily taken and published, the Royal Family's reputation would not have suffered yet another blow. Rather more, perhaps, are likely to feel that the Duchess's behaviour is the root cause of the damage. If she had refrained from behaviour likely to titillate and shock public opinion, there would have been no photographs, no embarrassment.

Directly and indirectly, the Duchess is being subsidised by the British taxpayer. She is not on the Civil List herself, but her husband, Prince Andrew, is: last year he received pounds 249,000 from the public purse. Because they are the Queen's grandchildren, the Duchess's two offspring are watched over by two police bodyguards, even on her many holidays. She and Prince Andrew separated five months ago (although they have been together this week at Balmoral, with much of the Royal Family). She is, it seems, anxious to hang on to her title come what may, and is hoping to receive a generous settlement when the separation is formalised. That, too, will be facilitated by public subsidy: the Queen's exemption from income tax has been calculated to be worth at least pounds 7.3m a year.

Endless rubbish has been written about the intolerable pressures that life in the Royal Family imposes on those who marry into it. In reality, they lead lives of extreme privilege and considerable interest. Most of the pressures seem to come from elements of incompatibility within the royal marriages. What is not in doubt is that the lesser royals cannot have the privileges without accepting the constraints. Much the best solution is for the Civil List to be restricted to the Queen and the Prince of Wales. They should reciprocate by paying all normal taxes. The Queen would be seen and respected primarily as a sovereign head of state, Prince Charles as her heir. The rest of the family would have to make and pay their own way. They would not be expected to fulfil any public functions, and would receive no public funds.

It is finally time to abandon the concept of 'the Royal Family'. This was developed during the Second World War, when King George VI and the Queen Mother, as she now is, presented their family as a rallying point for public morale. It survived well enough until the present Queen's children grew to be of marriageable age (although Princess Margaret had provided a taste of things to come). Latterly the happy family concept has come under severe strain as one by one the marriages of the Queen's first three children publicly disintegrated or threatened to do so.

The mistake made at Buckingham Palace sprang from arrogance. The Queen and her advisers could see that the monarchy needed modernising. But they believed only the image of the family needed treatment, and that they could control the process by controlling the media's access. Eventually the family proved as human as any other, and the press refused to be controlled. The results are sad, but so far of no constitutional significance.