The king will not look back on his annus horribilis “with undiluted pleasure”, as his late mother with masterly understatement so memorably observed of her own.
His cancer diagnosis and that of the Princess of Wales was a shocking jolt, while the poor judgment of the Duke of York has cast a shadow over the Sandringham royal Christmas. The Duke of Sussex’s relentless legal actions against newspapers have made headlines and he takes to the witness box again in the New Year.
When dawn rose on the second full year of his reign, who could have foreseen what 2024 had in store? Less than three weeks in, on 17 January, the first signs came with a double whammy of announcements: both Charles and Catherine required hospital treatment, although cancer was not then suspected in either case.
These may be vastly different challenges but there are some parallels with 1992 when Queen Elizabeth II, on the 40th anniversary of her succession, spoke at a Guildhall lunch in London and succinctly summed up a terrible year for the royal family and the monarchy. Both have witnessed sharpened interest in royal finances, and both have exposed the monarchy’s vulnerabilities.
Her “annus horribilis” saw Charles and Diana formally separate and the bombshell publication of Andrew Morton’s Diana biography – a de facto autobiography, it transpired – fuelling speculation Charles was an adulterer, and painting his then wife as a betrayed, self-harming bulimic. The Princess Royal divorced. The Duke and Duchess of York separated. A freshly estranged “Fergie” swiftly graced the tabloids, topless in St Tropez, having her toes sucked by her then financial adviser.
Hacked private conversations – “Squidgygate”, between Diana and a male friend, and in early 1993 “Camillagate”, a mortifyingly intimate conservation between Charles and Camilla – followed.
It all combined to debunk the image of the wholesome House of Windsor as a model for family life, skilfully curated since George V.
That year also saw – and this is what caused the late queen to shed a rare tear in public – the fire at her beloved home, Windsor Castle. Ironically, with hindsight, Prince Andrew was the hero of that hour, helping rescue historic artefacts.
Financial fallout from the Windsor fire ignited republican fervour. When the then prime minister, John Major, suggested a scandal-weary public bear the cost of Windsor’s repairs, there was outcry. It was swiftly announced Buckingham Palace would be opened to a paying public to raise the funds.
Equally significantly, Queen Elizabeth II and the then Prince of Wales, Charles, would volunteer to pay income tax and capital gains tax – just like her citizens.
“She would have been very reluctant to do so because her father took a great deal of trouble decades earlier to avoid tax, so I think she would have done that very reluctantly, and her mother was totally against it” said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty Magazine.
It was all to culminate in a dangerous moment for the monarchy, as the late queen acknowledged, in that Guildhall speech: “No institution, City, monarchy, whatever, should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t.”
Today, the popularity of the royals may not be on the knife-edge it was in 1992, but the year has certainly exposed their vulnerabilities. Andrew faced calls at the start of the year to testify under oath about his role in the Jeffrey Epstein abuse scandal. As it ends, his business shenanigans, including the most recent controversy over the alleged Chinese “spy” Yang Tengbo, has fixed the spotlight, as it was in 1992, on finances. So, too, has a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which fund the private coffers of the king and Prince of Wales.
Little said: “That programme made very uncomfortable viewing. Clearly, a radical reform is necessary. Maybe it’s being planned behind the scenes. Who knows? But as things stand, when you are shown dilapidated Duchy property and are told that the Prince of Wales is getting this massive income, it’s not a good look.”
Charles is now back to full-time duties. Catherine, who has said she is now cancer free, is gradually easing herself in. But the fact they were temporarily forced to retreat from public engagements meant Camilla and Princess Anne bore the brunt, supported by the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh –until Anne suffered her own medical mishap, sustaining concussion from what is believed to be a horse’s kick.
William, too, was out of the picture for a while, attracting criticism. It later emerged he had good reason: the father of three young children was desperately needed at home while their mother faced her health issues in private. The outcry over Catherine digitally manipulating a Mother’s Day smiling family snap was probably something both could have done without at that time.
“People couldn’t understand why William couldn’t attend his godfather’s memorial service when he was half a mile away at Adelaide Cottage, Windsor. We now think we know the reason. But he did get a lot of flak at the time: for that, and the perception he was lazy and didn’t want to do that royal stuff. But I think that is doing him a great injustice,” said Little. The prince, himself, has described the year as “brutal”.
“I don’t ever recall in the UK health being such a major factor in royal life. We look at the other anni horribiles and they weren’t really health related. Divorces, the Windsor fire, Diana’s death, the 1936 abdication, all of which rocked the institution,” added Little.
“I’m not suggesting that this time around the institution has been rocked. But this year has highlighted a certain vulnerability of the institution, and that is that they are quite an elderly bunch as a whole. And that there aren’t many younger royals of senior status to bear the burden.”
