Thread by @garius

No argument there.

I'm not making a moral judgement on the way the Queen has wielded the monarchy she has created. I'm just explaining how she's done it. And that she's done it WELL.

But the model comes with a cost: It means you HAVE to defend the individuals within it.

https://twitter.com/sharkastic/status/1368861794182238208

Because The Firm has to stick together. If you follow the rules of patronage and public behaviour, you get 100% backing. That's the price for it.

But the UNWRITTEN rule she built in was that you should do anything TOO awful in your private life.

And 'awful', in this model means anything outright criminal, or which makes you look too normal. You need to be relatable, but aloof.

Don't do ANYTHING that you wouldn't want to see on a commemorative plate.

Andrew flouted that being being a horrific human being, but managed to put credits in under the model to mean they can't bin him now. Brenda is now stuck with him. It's sunk cost.

Charles has flourished by just being generally a bit wet. He's just a bit of a snob and a coward, but 100% committed to the model as he knows without it he doesn't have anything to fall back on.

He's the royal Alan Partridge.

Will, meanwhile, is the heir. The above-average one Brenda knows is the best chance for the future. And the one who 'rebelled' in a way Brenda's model of monarchy could allow for - marrying someone "a bit new money."

And this is all why Harry and Diana have both been treated like shit. They both failed to either buy in to, or perform well within, Brenda's model of monarchy, and neither had the sunk cost credits of Andrew to fall back on. So they get shoved out.

But back to the original point, that's why Andrew is the interesting case in all this. See also: prorogation of Parliament.

Both STARKLY highlighted that Brenda's model, which innately implies: "Support do and I'll do the right thing when it REALLY matters" was a paper tiger.