To call the characters and behaviour of the “Royals” a Soap Opera is a bit of a cliché. But the series “The Crown” worked perfectly as a sort of posh “Eastenders”. The overwhelming learning was of a shallow family whose only claim to fame was that they were born into (or married into) privilege. The only one of them that successfully competed on a level playing field with normal people was Anne on her horse (good for her).

This is where the obligation for deference becomes unsupportable. The sight of an elected Prime Minister kowtowing to one of them was particularly repellent. But there was a symbolism here. To be impressed by genuine achievement is healthy and commendable. To show admiration for someone solely because of the accident of their birth is not.
When countries become republics, however shaky the democracy may be, they abandon the absurd contention of birthright. Some monarchists argue that to have a non-political Royal head of state is preferable because oh his/her neutrality. But if that Head of State comes randomly from a very narrow cohort it’s very risky. To cite the late Queen to prove that Monarchy works is specious. Edward VIII was a horror , and we could have had a King Andrew if there’d been a fatal virus to carry of the Queen and her elder son during the 22 years when Andrew was second in line to the throne!
The amount of media coverage the current spat between the Windsors and the Spencers is getting makes us look ridiculous. The revelations about Andrew should make us question the whole idea of inherited wealth and power. And in public the Royals’ behaviour often makes it look as if we’re stuck in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. Then there’s the institutionalised lies and cover ups. We don’t hear about gay members of the Royals, but they’ve been some of course. Or how the late Queen’s consort lived much of the time with his mistress. But he did.
There are encouraging signs that the public is becoming weary of the Soap Opera, but don’t hold your breath. They hang on.