Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival

“As this day draws to its close, I know that my abiding memory of it will be, not only the solemnity and beauty of the ceremony, but the inspiration of your loyalty and affection.”

Scobie quotes a section from the Queen’s first speech as sovereign that is relevant to her final appearance. The Queen was a beloved figure nationally and globally, and she achieved this partly because of her willingness to submerge herself in her royal role of duty and service. Her funeral was an emotional event, showcasing her popularity and impact.

“But it can be said for sure that the long-suffering prince who now wears the crown has known for years that if the monarchy is going to survive, it will have to present itself to the world as—at the very least—a leaner, more tolerant, and more personable family and organization. […] Too bad the image didn’t hold.”

Charles is aware that, unable to command the same gravitas and rely on the same sentiments as his mother, he needs to present a different image to the public if the monarchy is to survive. However, Scobie notes that the image didn’t hold for long (the Lady Hussey incident took place just weeks later) because the institution is unwilling to institute real change to appear more tolerant and personable.

“With clashing approaches and opinions, Charles and William are playing out an increasing struggle between father and son in front of a global audience. The dysfunction goes way beyond parent and child, though. The institution and the family seem unable, even unwilling, to change with the times.”

The monarchy has been left vulnerable after the Queen’s death, as her presence acted as a distraction from a number of systemic issues within the institution. Even the dysfunction that exists within the family—from the Sussex saga to the tension between Charles and William—is a result of The Intricate Dynamics of Image and Power Within the Royal Family. There is competition within the family for each faction to present themselves a certain way, and relationships are sacrificed in the wake of this rivalry. The overreliance on image for relevance, in turn, is because of the institution’s disinclination to embrace real change for the same purpose.

“With the world’s eyes on him and question marks about his moral character and fitness to serve littering his first days on the throne, it’s fair to say the new monarch should have known better. This little ‘episode' immediately went viral, and the next day nicknames like ‘Grumpy King’ emerged, and news coverage naturally zeroed in on it.”

Scobie describes how a couple of incidents following the Queen’s death, which highlighted Charles’s “grumpiness,” made news headlines. This passage indicates the level of scrutiny that members of the royal family are subject to. It also shows how Image and Power intersects with The Public Versus Personal Lives of the Royals. There is a need to manage the public persona and the personal self in the way that a certain image is maintained in the public consciousness, to ensure the continuance of soft power.

“As the Queen waved to her people and the Red Arrows aerobatic team streaked the sky red, white, and blue in perfect formation, I was reminded that this was the kind of showpiece moment the royal family had done so well during her reign. And, after a few stormy years, this sunshine was just what the Windsors needed—a cheerful occasion to repackage and reissue the royal brand.”

Scobie describes the Trooping the Colour parade on the Queen’s birthday in 2022, which also marked her 70th year as sovereign. The pomp and circumstance displayed at the parade is in line with how the royals employ pageantry and ceremony to reiterate Image and Power. This particular parade was especially important to evoke positive sentiment toward the monarchy, especially considering the difficult years preceding it: Andrew’s scandals and the Sussexes’ exit exposed many institutional and systemic flaws and weaknesses of the monarchy.

“While it was never controversial to support the Queen, it’s not the same with Charles. After a long life in the public eye, and one made up of some questionable decisions, Charles was never going to have an easy reign.”

Scobie sums up the heart of the issue when it comes to the challenges that lie ahead of Charles as sovereign. Because of the far more public life he has led, Charles’s failings and weaknesses have been exposed to the public for years. Especially in comparison to his mother, this makes Charles a more complicated sovereign to support without reservation.

“A family source described her decision as a ‘genuinely sad’ moment for the monarch and another ‘gut punch’ to the family, particularly coming on the heels of Prince Philip’s death. The Queen was distraught over how the media and the public had so quickly turned against Andrew, but, now aware that more drastic action needed to be taken, she was decisive.”

In 2022, the Queen officially stripped Andrew of his royal titles, honors, and duties. This passage presents a rare occasion where the public sees the Queen as the sovereign intersecting with the Queen as a person. As the head of the monarchy, she understands the need for Andrew to be punished, if the institution is to escape scrutiny and critique. She carries out her duty to the Crown irrespective of her personal feelings. However, Andrew only received this punishment years after his associations with Epstein were first made public. This delay in punishment reveals the blind spot the Queen had concerning her favorite son.

“‘In the United Kingdom, racism takes a different shape to the United States and other parts of the world. […] In Britain, racism furtively shape-shifts, and it lurks in the shadows as casually accepted discrimination, coded language, and systemic oppression, often revealing itself in conversations about class, crusty colonialist thinking, and well-worn stereotypes.”

Scobie describes the difference between racism in the United States and the United Kingdom. The covert racism that exists in Britain is helped by both the Palace and the British media’s refusal to acknowledge or engage with the subject. Despite the vitriolic reportage surrounding Meghan and the tropes of her as an angry and aggressive character that dominated tabloid headlines, both the Palace and the media continued to deny that race was an element at play.

“It demonstrates an unwillingness to truly accept, embrace, and protect what the Duchess of Sussex’s inclusion stood for beyond palace walls—how important it was for the millions of Black, Brown, and non-white people throughout Britain and the predominantly non-white Commonwealth to finally see a little of themselves represented in the monarchy because of Meghan’s presence, her background, and her union with Harry.”

Scobie reflects on how the Firm’s refusal to acknowledge and engage with the issue of racism cost them a golden opportunity to strengthen and widen their relevance. Meghan could have been a unifying and heartening symbol to not just Britain’s younger generation looking to build a more open and diverse national identity, but also the non-white population of the Commonwealth. The latter especially could have had an immensely positive impact, considering that a number of the Commonwealth realms are looking to weaken ties with Britain.

“As the heir, he’s finally fully embraced his roles and responsibilities at Royal Family, Inc. […] It is said that after maturing into his position in the Firm, the prince now aims to follow in the Queen’s footsteps. […] The counter to this is that the Firm incrementally institutionalized Prince William—the unyielding pressure from the establishment wore him down into a stoic acceptance of his fate as the next great hope for the monarchy.”

Scobie critically examines the public persona that William presents to the world, especially after stepping up to take on royal duties in 2017. William’s perception as the future of the monarchy is rooted in this public image, as he is largely well-liked. A part of this persona is consciously cultivated and modeled upon the Queen’s own life. However, William has been unable to escape the institutionalization after a lifetime of being groomed as the heir to the throne: His attitudes and beliefs have also undergone real change, and he has grown colder, harsher, and more indifferent because of his royal role.

“Here was a person who, like many, struggles with unrelenting work-life balance and the letting go of one part of yourself to be fully present in the other. It dawned on me that this is the royal predicament in a nutshell—the juggling of inner and outer lives, ambitions and obligations, personal desire and duty.”

Scobie reflects on a moment years ago when William shared his struggles with separating work from family life. This is the heart of the royal dilemma, but blown up on a much larger scale: The royals need to successfully manage their Personal Versus Public Lives, as the stakes are the very health of the institution. This moment also shows William’s vulnerable side, which Scobie does not believe will survive many years into the institutionalization he has experienced—and will continue to experience—in his royal role.

“The ongoing fictionalization of the Sussexes’ lives continues to be a national sport for large sections of the mainstream media. Despite him opening up his life to the public in interviews, television specials, and even a 125,000-word memoir, the caricature most of the papers draw of Prince Harry is barely recognizable to anyone who actually knows him. It’s one of the many reasons why the Duke of Sussex is on a mission to reclaim his story, his life, and his image from the media and the public’s fantastical accounts.”

The royals’ lives have always served as a source of entertainment and content for public consumption, especially via the tabloids. The Sussexes’ experiences in particular demonstrate the power the media holds to influence the royal family’s lives, courtesy of the “invisible contract.” Harry’s refusal to accept such fictionalization and inaccuracies has intensified his and Meghan’s negative relationship with the British tabloids, spawning further spear campaigns in the press.

“Courtiers are the ultimate institutional insiders who—invisibly but with great influence—assist their principals with strategies around work and family complications, and they do what it takes to keep ugly stuff out of the media’s relentless gaze. They help them navigate the churning waters where the rivers of their personal lives meet the wild, expansive sea of public opinion.”

Just as the media holds immense power over the royals’ public image, so too do the courtiers. It is the latter’s job to manage the image and reputation of the royals. Because of the complex relationship between Image and Power within the Firm, being in control of the royal family’s image automatically invests the courtiers with immense power. The “churning waters” metaphor suggests that when the public receives information about and comments on the royals’ personal lives, the potential for chaos ensues, and the power of the courtiers becomes relevant as they help manage that uncertainty.

“In retrospect, as the crevasse between the brothers deepened to the point that reconciliation still seems like a long shot, even Case’s PR gambits can now be viewed as successes for Kensington Palace. The results are in: William is firmly in the role of a decisive king in waiting and Harry has been cast by the Palace and the press as a perceived lost soul.”

Scobie identifies the courtiers whom Harry referred to using etymological nicknames in his memoir. Simon Case is “The Fly” and is partly responsible for the fractured relationship between William and Harry. The power that the courtiers have enables them to do great good; however, their ways of working also expose the dysfunction and institutional cruelty that exists within the system. The Firm willingly sanctions sacrificing personal relationships at the altar of Image and Power.

“The system had a blueprint for Diana as a vessel for hereditary power, but when it came to Diana as a human being, the Palace was completely unprepared. As she matured, she proved to be all things the monarchy was not—modern, vital, mercurial, savvy, and, to the institution’s eventual dismay, wildly popular.”

Lady Diana Spencer was selected as the perfect consort to Charles, heir to the throne, and the Palace disallowed him from marrying his true love, Camilla Shand. However, Diana proved far more problematic for the Firm, as she stood fundamentally and diametrically opposed to all of their anachronistic values and attitudes. It was Camilla who eventually emerged as the better-suited partner to both Charles and the monarch. The Diana-Charles-Camilla situation exposes the Firm’s misogynistic underpinnings and displays the result of overlooking the person essaying the royal role.

“Mass catharsis often requires a sacrificial lamb. In this case, the complexity of truth was hauled up to the altar. […] Her tragic death was the result of a young, modern woman entering an unforgiving, archaic system that failed to protect her, a mother caught between loving and hating the glare of the celebrity spotlight, and an ordinary human being facing extraordinary pressure. But this entanglement of facts? Who benefits from that? Where’s the money in that? That narrative is too untidy.”

Scobie examines how Diana’s death meant that she lost her hard-earned control of her narrative. The complexities and nuances of Diana’s life and experiences were ignored in favor of presenting her as a unidimensional figure by the media and the Firm. She was alternatively painted as a saint or a sinner, and at times, just as a glamorous figure. Diana the person and the complexity of her life were not as lucrative to the media or beneficial to the Firm as these edited and simplistic versions.

“Camilla’s stability and endurance during these hardships was recognized by those close to her and quietly by those in the orbit of the Palace. She never publicly aired her grievances or rushed to correct the record […] no matter how vicious the rumor—she rode out the storm, prioritizing her relationship with Charles. […] That grin-and-bear-it upbringing had already prepared her for a life of ‘never complain, never explain’ as a member of the royal family.”

Despite being hated, reviled, and trolled by the public, Camilla refused to speak up for herself and simply remained steadfast beside Charles. In doing so, she showed both the Palace and the media that she was willing to set herself up for long-term success, and this paid off in her favor. Because of her efforts, the Palace and the media have both been instrumental in the rehabilitation of Camilla’s public image.

“Admittedly, Kate has rarely put a foot down wrong in public. But in the instances where criticism would be fair, such as carrying out fewer engagements than other senior royals […] you’d be unlikely to read about it in any British newspaper.”

Kate is the least problematic of royal consorts to have recently married into the royal family. She has experienced some negative tabloid coverage in her lifetime; however, all traces of it disappeared the moment she married into the royal family. Kate is also intensely protected by the Palace machinery because of her position as wife and mother to two respective heirs. Thus, she rarely faces criticism. This is the polar opposite of the treatment that Meghan received, both before and after marrying into the family.

“Kate may have achieved a Queen-like detachment, but it’s still a guess as to whether she can maintain this now that natural occurrences and unanticipated conditions have pushed her further into the spotlight. Even to this day, the public knows so little about her, and we haven’t yet seen her display the gravitas and commanding power that the late Queen mustered so effortlessly.”

Scobie compares Kate to the Queen and points out where she falls short, reserving judgment on whether Kate will be as effective and successful. Despite a similar kind of persona, Kate is more reticent and introverted than the Queen. An ability to command the spotlight while remaining detached within it is vital to the royals’ success, as indicated in the theme of Personal Versus Public Lives.

“Because the sovereign’s roles include the head of British Armed Forces and the head of the Church of England, the monarchy was already conjoined with the institutions of the military and religion. But after Her Majesty’s coronation, the institution of the media—one that now was connected to the people by way of a TV or radio in virtually every British home—also became an essential component of the royal pantomime.”

Queen Elizabeth II was the first to embrace modern media by having her coronation televised. By allowing the public this kind of access, the Queen established the role of the media as an important partner in reinforcing public Image and Power. The media’s position strengthened over time even as the other two institutions associated with the monarchy—the military and religion—grew less influential. Thus, in contemporary times, the media still commands the most influence on perceptions about the royal family.

“Where once the royal family needed the print press as a partner for advancing their agenda, it is now in such dire straits that the Palace has mutated into a feeder machine […] With the option to tell their own stories on social platforms and through other progressive outlets, perhaps it’s time the Palace realizes it no longer needs to play the dirty game.”

Scobie opines that the royal family needs to rethink its current relationship with the media. He does not believe the royals need the news industry’s help to maintain Image and Power as it once did, especially with the advent of alternative news outlets and tools like social media. The existing equation between the royals and the media is more an attempt to cling to old ways of working than a truly symbiotic one.

“The remnants of empire—damaged and forever-stained with colonial boot scuffs—reissued as equal partners in the pursuit of brotherly love and common good. The rapacious takeovers glossed over as institutional imperfections. And the state power and ancestral privilege of the Crown repurposed as a living bond between a sovereign and Commonwealth citizens who are no longer subjects.”

The Commonwealth is an example of the Firm utilizing Image and Power to remain relevant in a changing world, while continuing to ignore foundational issues. With the conclusion of the colonial project, Britain no longer held actual power over large swathes of the world. However, the Commonwealth reinstated the Queen as an influential global figure commanding soft power. To do so, the Firm marketed the associations between Britain and past colonies as one of “brotherly love,” while ignoring the history of these associations and avoiding making any real reparations.

“As journalist and polemicist Fintan O’Toole pointed out, ‘The odd thing about these British royal ceremonials is that they have become more important as the power and majesty they are supposed to project has diminished.’”

In the final eponymous chapter, Scobie describes Charles’s coronation and why it was important that the event was a grand scale one, in opposition to Charles’s original vision. With the actual commanding power of the monarchy diminishing after the Queen’s death, the monarchy needs pageantry and ceremony more than ever to project the image of power and import.