There's an enormous push on at the moment to change the image of Britain's royal family. Huge conferences, thinktanks and documentary analysis are considering if the monarchy should change radically to be more in keeping with modern times, or whether this would be merely role-playing and responding to various spin doctors.
Because they really don't meet any real people a lot of the time, some of the older royals could be quite excused for thinking the tabloid press was alarmist, that for generations a public was forgiving of its "betters", who said one thing and did another, just as long as appearances were kept up and dignity preserved.
In the past "doing your duty" was much more important than being touchy-feely. It was more important to observe protocol than make spontaneous sentimental gestures.
But of course they got a great fright at having so misread the country's mood and reaction to Princess Diana's death at the beginning of September and not unreasonably decided on some kind of damage limitation, lest the sound of tumbrils be heard in the distance. When people left bunches of flowers outside Buckingham Palace referring to Diana as a rose and to the royal family as thorns, it was time to do something.
But for people who have resisted change for so long it is fairly difficult. They have been adamant about sending out the message that the paring down of the royal entourage had been underway already, and that they had started to pay taxes before Diana's death. What they are doing is trying to bring more informality and less pomp and ceremony into their meetings with the public.
This is bad news for lord lieutenants everywhere and for a huge number of municipal riffraff bedecked in chains, who were wheeled out wearing feathers and swords and mad tri-cornered hats like something from the Yeoman of the Guard whenever a royal visit was on the cards.
And in a way you'd wonder if it is all going to be worth it?
Perhaps there are still a great many people who really like the queen of England to be remote and dignified, her son to be anguished and concerned, her husband to bark at people without any notion of who they are or where he is.
Maybe it is too late to change now. And possibly counterproductive.
It is embarrassing to see Prince Charles talking to the Spice Girls and trying to sway in time to music he doesn't hear in his heart.
Maybe it's dishonest to ask them to change their personalities, all in the name of image. The whole make-over bit could be very suspect.
Either you really do like gin and smiling and talking about horses - as the queen mother is reputed to have done for years - or you don't. If you are a reserved, anxious, dutiful personality, maybe that's what you should go on being.
At least that way people know what they are going to get.
If it's not in your heart to reach out to lepers and pick up children then you're going to look mighty artificial doing so because a committee has said it's good for your image. We are after all, rightly or wrongly, a bit suspicious of people who change their image, who adopt a new style.
Like: is Bertie Ahern a better man because he is dressed like a male model nowadays? If he wore an anorak for so long, maybe he liked it and we should have left him wearing it? Or do we not like seeing our statesmen with a scruffy tinge? Do we think perhaps that fine office deserves finer feathers than an anorak?
And were they wrong to fuss about Labour MP Shirley Williams's hair in England, as they did for decades? No one could see her taking the nation seriously, they said, if she couldn't manage a decent hair-do for herself. It was a mere matter of image.
I know people who know Shirley Williams and she said to them she could never take seriously anyone's views on her hair and she refused to believe that in a sane world people could judge her capabilities on whether or not she was seen to have a permanently good hair day.
When Michael Foot turned up at the Cenotaph in a falling-to-bits old jacket, people found it hard to believe he couldn't have done it deliberately, as some kind of slight to the importance of the occasion.
When Richard Nixon was reputed to have lost the US presidential debate because he had a five o'clock shadow that made him look sinister, it did wonders for the TV make-up industry.
When Margaret Thatcher was running for power the received wisdom of her supporters was that her voice was too shrill and her hair too brassy. She lowered both voice and hair tones and the rest is history.
When Presidents Robinson and McAleese were elected there were many, far too many, column inches about their make-overs, their style gurus and people giving them a new look. I am all in favour of people looking their best, and maybe looking younger or more casual or more dressy than is their nature if the occasion calls for it, but I do not believe that the hearts and mind of nations were seriously turned one way or another by mid-calf length skirts, autumnal colours and feathery hair styles.
BUT I suppose looking approachable - and as if you were reasonably accessible rather than remote - is a different thing. It's a matter of basic niceness and a way of being grateful to the ordinary people for their admiration and for having let them be figureheads. That's the way a lot of people see it nowadays, rather than being in some kind of mind-set about it all being part a Divine Right of Kings. It's all a kind of bargain anyway, between royalty and people, where one lot represent the nation at State ceremonies and get paid by a Civil List, and add hugely to the sense of tradition and the tourist revenue of the country. And in theory the other lot should be delighted with them and think they are getting good value from a cast of characters whose doings they know very well over the years.
And if the lot who are being ruled are a bit discontented with their side of the bargain, then they're right to rumble and ask for a better show. And probably the royals are quite right to have this discussion about their image and wonder what face they should show in the current circumstances. But if we say that it can't be taught - this warmth and matey-ness that people seem to yearn for - if it would all look phoney and contrived, then is there an argument that those who don't know how to do it should perhaps leave the stage?
It's not quite as straightforward as it looks.
Suppose you knew someone of very strong views, committed opinions, and let's say a loudish and tousled personality. Suppose he or she changed the image to that of a groomed, quieter, more balanced on-the-one-hand/on-the-otherhand kind of person.
And suppose the change had something to do with running for election, or aiming for promotion, would you think this was a great person, able to learn from experience and to move with the times, or would you think the person was a roaring hypocrite with an eye only to the main chance?
I suppose it would depend entirely on whether you liked the person or not. And in the end, that's what going to happen to the royals and their new image.
It's as simple and subjective as that.