Why William must take over the family firm

Is the royal family extremely unlucky to have more than its fair share of dysfunctional members, or is being royal the cause of the problem?

The Queen, who is almost beyond reproach, has produced at least two out of four children who, in usual spheres, would be considered embarrassing at best.

Even the peccadillos, which are not being probed by the police or FBI, are eyebrow-raising; Andrew keeping 72 teddies lined up in regimental order on his bed; Charles asking his valet to squeeze out his toothpaste; Andrew summoning Buckingham Palace maids to close his curtains for him; Charles asking his valet to head up his charitable foundation.

Do these two grown men lack judgement because of the way they were reared, or were they genetically programmed to go awry?

After his capitulation to Virginia Giuffre, Andrew, now officially a pariah, seems to have been born arrogant and then gone out of his way to seek the worst kind of company.

His association with the now-deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been his ruin, which is not to excuse his own part in his downfall.

The out-of-court settlement (said to be worth £12 million) of his sexual abuse lawsuit this week is a tawdry culmination of a life spent pandering to his own desires, with no thought for the consequences.

If we believe his version of events over the cash for honours scandal, Charles is guilty only of stupidity. But what stupidity?

He faces being questioned by police in a criminal investigation into allegations that a Saudi billionaire was promised British citizenship and a knighthood in return for his generosity to The Prince’s Foundation.

Though it is Michael Fawcett, Charles’ former servant, who is the focus of Scotland Yard enquiries, the saga has an unsavoury whiff that, whatever the outcome, ill befits the heir to the throne.

There have been plenty of alarm bells in a relationship going back 40 years, including accusations of bullying and flogging unwanted royal gifts, that would have alerted a more discerning boss to Fawcett’s faults.

The future of the monarchy is jeopardised to a greater or lesser degree by the actions of both Andrew and Charles.

There is almost certainly more to come. Andrew’s accuser will not stay silent forever (surely an Oprah TV special awaits); Charles could well be dragged further into the Fawcett mire; and then there are Prince Harry’s memoirs, reportedly with dirt about Camilla, to look forward to later this year.

There may be a truce of sorts in respect of the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebrations in June, but what happens beyond that?

Given her age, the tainted Windsor brand can’t keep relying on the public’s love for HM, and her own probity, to safeguard its reputation. So, what’s the long (probably not that long) term plan?

A poll by Ipsos MORI this week showed that more than a fifth of Britons want to abolish the monarchy, up from 15 per cent in 2018. Among 18 to 34-year-olds, the number of abolitionists has risen from 23 to 31 per cent in a year.

Clearly, someone has to manage the family, introduce new codes of behaviour that will end the “anything goes” attitude that still prevails, restore public trust by ensuring taxpayers get value for money, and lead by example.

Charles, who has been gradually gearing up to take over the reins from his mother, is not in a position to put his own house in order until he has been completely cleared of any involvement in the cash for honours affair.

He has already toned down his coronation plans, announcing just three days before the latest Fawcett revelations that there would be no repeat of the pomp and circumstance of 1953.

Suppose the often-blinkered Charles accepts that royal ostentation is inappropriate even for his big day. Could he also be persuaded to divest some of his powers in favour of his next in line?

We don’t have to join the “skip a generation” camp to urge for the elevation of William to a head of family role. When the time comes, Charles can still be king, retaining the monarch’s largely ceremonial head of state responsibilities.

But his eldest son, who will be 40 in June, should be handed decision-making control over the firm, rather like a chief executive.

William has high public approval ratings, no skeletons (as far as we know), and a reassuringly dull but dutiful persona. He also has Catherine, who appears incapable of impropriety.

In short, the Cambridges are cast in the Queen’s mould and precisely what the public expects of their hard-working senior royals. That is why it has become customary of late to wheel them out whenever the institution needs better PR.

In fact, they are seen as such safe hands that they are being despatched to the Caribbean next month to shore up support for the monarchy in the region following the recent decision by Barbados to become a republic.

Let them go and enjoy their fortnight in the sun. But in the months and years ahead, they should be directing their charm offensive where it is needed most, at home.