Oh for a butt of Malmsey wine! Well OK, King Charles obviously does not wish to kill his disgraced brother but he would not be human if he did not occasionally reflect on simpler days, when royal embarrassments could be disappeared -- or packed off to a role in the colonies.

To be fair, the King moved swiftly against Prince Andrew over new details of his links with Jeffrey Epstein and allegations of sex with Virginia Giuffre, essentially a trafficked teen. The latest twist in this squalid saga followed publication of her harrowing, posthumous memoir, revealing that he was in contact with Epstein later than he claimed -- writing that they would "play again soon". The man we no longer call the Duke of York was forced to stop using his royal titles, announced in a typically self-pitying statement.

But in allowing Andrew the dignity of seeming to act himself, there is a sense that the royal family still views it largely as a PR crisis and ongoing damage limitation. This is a misjudgment. Robert Jenrick, the Tory frontbencher, backed calls for Andrew to be formally stripped of his titles and forced from the palatial Crown Estate home he enjoys on a peppercorn rent, adding "the public are sick of him".

Such calls could be seen as moot. It is not as if the King has failed to act. An already shamed royal has been pushed further to the margins of British life. But this could be a defining moment for the monarchy. I do not mean that a few false steps will unleash a wave of republicanism. King Charles is well liked, his son and heir even more so. Public anger is localised to Andrew. If the Crown wishes to ride out the storm, it probably can. Thursday's royal news is the King praying with the pope.

But there is both danger and opportunity here. The royal family is heading towards one of those inflection points where it needs to modernise itself back into sync with the public. Nearly a third of Britons say the monarchy is of little or no importance to them; three-fifths of under 35s favour an elected head of state. Indefinite support can no longer be assumed.

At the core of Prince Andrew's disgrace is his sense of entitlement, a flaw evident in his disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview. His is an extreme case. But entitlement is a central premise of monarchy -- a presumption that by dint of birth this family is entitled to loyalty and deference, entitled to palaces, estates and other perquisites. Secrecy still surrounds their finances. In return they serve the nation. It is a gilded cage, but it still glitters.

Such entitlement is unappealing in an ever-less deferential world. And, perforce, hereditary monarchy comes without quality control, especially among the peripheral royals who enjoy the lifestyle. Our politics is now suffused with an anti-establishment mood, tearing away at the institutional pillars of the status quo. The monarchy is not a target but it is not immune from wider political forces. Anti-establishment populism can lead in many directions.

Both the King and the Prince of Wales see the need for reform. King Charles has focused on cutting expenditure to concentrate on those at the top of the line of succession. But he remains a creature of an earlier era. His is still a palace of courtiers and flummery.

More striking is the image spun around the Prince of Wales. Profiles of Prince William stress his efforts to keep home life normal and unstuffy. There are no live-in servants (though there is a nanny, a housekeeper and others). The children do chores and set the table. The couple are seen at the supermarket. His values are attuned to modern social concerns, especially homelessness and mental health.

The message is clear. His monarchy will be less formal, more grounded, visibly compassionate. Though immensely privileged, his lifestyle should also be recognisable to the average citizen.

This is why the instinct to hunker down after last week's actions may be a mistake. It is at odds with the wider strategy. The King should lean in to this crisis and a wise prime minister would be advising him to do so.

Just as the Queen's understated response to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales appeared to detach her from the country, this is an occasion where Britons are looking for more than the usual discretion. The King should assent to formal parliamentary action. Rather than agreeing not to use his titles, Andrew Windsor should suffer the shame of being constitutionally stripped of them. While his lease may be watertight, there are likely to be other pressures which can be brought upon him to downsize. The royal family should be seen to dismiss him rather than simply wish him out of sight.

The situation is complicated not only by family ties but also by Andrew's continued denials. He has been convicted of nothing. But even if one sets aside the sexual allegations (which he paid not to have aired in court), his prolonged friendship with a convicted paedophile is a matter of record. The Crown cannot react to every moment of outrage. But this is no ordinary scandal. People are rightly outraged.

The future does not need to be about pared back "bicycling monarchies", bursting through the traditional constraints on political activism or even pretending to be unrealistically "normal". It means shedding that image of entitlement, showing that the royal family is aligned with the values of the public. This scandal is a chance to prove they can be.

A defining crisis for Britain's royals