X Close

Scrapping the Royal Train is a symbol of the monarchy’s demise

The Firm is alienating its natural supporters. Credit: Getty

The Firm is alienating its natural supporters. Credit: Getty

July 2 2025 - 10:00am

Until quite recently I was very confident that the monarchy would survive for the foreseeable future. Polling suggested that support for a republic was becalmed at around 20%, although always higher among younger age groups, and that this figure had barely shifted in decades. Big occasions like royal weddings and the old Queen’s Jubilees brought forth an enormous groundswell of goodwill. Protests by anti-monarchists felt mean-spirited and joyless.

Now? It’s anyone’s guess. It seems far from inconceivable that William V will be the last of his line and that Mr George Windsor will see out his years watching tourists eat their picnics on the lawn at Sandringham.

One of the principal reasons for my pessimism is that the royals themselves seem to have lost confidence in the monarchy as an ideal, and as a source of national self-confidence and patriotic brio. How else to explain the King’s decision to scrap the Royal Train, which has existed in one form or another for over 150 years?

Now, of course, defenders of the decision will say that the current rolling stock is coming to the end of its natural life and will be expensive to replace and modernize. They argue that this is a sensible decision, continuing the King’s stated desire for a less grandiose royal operation.

But ultimately, it signals a kind of pre-emptive cringing. As with the deliberately “slimmed-down” coronation, and the Palace’s pusillanimous reaction to the entirely manufactured controversy involving Ngozi Fulani and Lady Susan Hussey in 2022, the strong impression is of an institution that is no longer willing to take its own side in a quarrel, or to think broadly and strategically about what the monarchy ought to represent.

Maybe there are people who will applaud the idea of the King saving money by traveling in a shiny modern helicopter (although one might reasonably ask how his various attendants, bodyguards and advisers will be transported; you can fit a lot more people, more comfortably, on a train). But I suspect that those people are a minority — and that they are in any case more likely to disapprove of monarchy in principle. There is almost certainly a much larger percentage of the population who are charmed and cheered by the existence of the Royal Train, who take pleasure in its historical resonances and its inherent romance.

This is the great danger of the Caroline modernization program: that the Firm alienates, annoys and disappoints its natural supporters, while not in any way mollifying or appealing to the critics, the skeptics and those who have no instinctive cultural attachment to the monarchy.

Already there are mutterings in some Right-wing circles about the way in which the monarchy is throwing its weight behind the post-Blairite state dogmas around identity, religion and multiculturalism. The younger royals in particular are clearly very comfortable with this “soft politicization”, whereby they identify themselves with NHS cultism and the mental health industry, while ignoring more traditional concerns — William, for instance, is said to be totally uninterested in Christianity.

And the monarchy is losing support compared with 20 or 30 years ago, especially among the young. At the time of the Platinum Jubilee, only 62% of respondents were firmly monarchist — that fell to under a third of 18-24 year olds.

If the royals themselves lack any clear and distinctive vision for the monarchy beyond a kind of twee aesthetic background for The Current Thing, then they can hardly expect the rest of us to throw our weight behind them, especially if they refuse to address the concerns of their natural allies and supporters at a time of national crisis.

Death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts would be a terrible fate for a thousand-year-old monarchy — and is not nearly so unlikely as it once seemed.


Niall Gooch is a public sector worker and occasional writer who lives in Kent.

niall_gooch

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam