There is no question that the House of Windsor feels under pressure, and rightly so. Our monarchy has lost sight of its historic underpinning based on the 1689 Bill of Rights, the too-often overlooked settlement of the governance of England following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688." While people seem to know about Magna Carta and invariably overstate it's modern significance, very few know of the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights, both of which truly laid the foundations for the parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy which we now have, and these require a monarchy cognisant of just how limited its options are to express opinions about anything.
This topic is rarely taught or discussed because it is a subtle redefinition of legal duties with nothing sexy or swashbuckling to recommend it. But in terms of it's consequence it removed the need for bloody revolutions like those in France. It demoted the political power of the monarch beneath that of Parliament. Though a great deal of subsequent constitutional evolution has followed, nothing since has given the Monarchy the power to initiate political change.
In a post-Diana fantasy both King Charles and Prince William seem to think they are at liberty to initiate change which I think is unconstitutional. It was not, for instance, in the gift of the King to negotiate a new coronation oath with Justin Welby. It it is unwise for the King to so firmly identify himself with the whole questionable 'science' of the "carbon-neutral climate change" agenda. King Charles warmly embraced Greta Thunberg's appearance at a 'climate summit' in 2021. He had no right to express personal sentiment so boldly. Prince William has flown 5,750 miles alongside Keir Starmer to join what the BBC described as "other World leaders". to denounce air pollution and promote carbon neutrality. Prince William cannot be described as a 'leader' for that is not the constitutional function of the House of Windsor, and I do not recall Queen Elizabeth 11 making such a gaff.
As the whole Prince Andrew affair has demonstrated the public has dramatically lost any willingness to allow the Royal Household any slack in the way it behaves. True that there has been a massive public over-reaction to the former Duke of York's boorish behaviours. Disapproval of the conduct of the then Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles means that however admirably Queen Consort Camilla carries out her public duties – and few would begrudge her credit in that area – the House of Windsor remains under suspicious scrutiny.
The consequence is that the Monarchy is torn between those who press for 'modernisation' which is fraught with danger, and those who believe that the Monarchy must return to it's root purpose which benefits from it's very remoteness Any attempt to cultivate a 'common touch' looks absurd and hypocritical from a chauffeur-driven limousine or the steps of a palace.
The Anglican Church has attempted to 'modernise' over the last half century, with rewrites of the bible, so-called beat services and positioning itself as a branch of social services. Empty churches have resulted. Gone are spiritual values and the very meaning of 'faith'. The Monarchy seams to be heading along a similar path whereas its strength is in tradition, its emblematic status as a symbol of patriotism and Britishness and indeed the 'timelessness' of the Monarchy, which the late Queen Elizabeth embodied. If King Charles and Prince William see their rolls as hobnobbing with figures from showbiz they will reduce the monarchy to a trivial sideshow to appear with Claudia Winkleman and Pudsey Bear on Children in Need. The fundamental reason for having a monarchy will evaporate with every populist sentiment.