His crowning moment

Man in Hat Sits on Chair. The front cover of satirical magazine, Private Eye, succinctly summed up yesterday's coronation of King Charles III in Westminster Abbey. In essence, that's what an enthronement boils down to. There shouldn't really be much more to be said but, unfortunately, in a constitutional monarchy such as ours, there is always more - much more.

As the first-born son of the reigning monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Charles' destiny (and constitutional duty) was to succeed his mother as sovereign on her death. It couldn't have been anticipated at his birth in 1948 that Queen Elizabeth II would sit on the throne for seventy years, beating her great great grandmother Victoria's record by six years to become the longest reigning monarch in British history and only just missing Louis XIV's world record by two years. But, then, Louis came to the throne of France aged five. It's been a long and often frustrating wait for Charles but finally, aged seventy-four, his moment has arrived. Having succeeded to the throne on his mother's death last September, his coronation yesterday sets the seal on his reign. Now he has to make it work.

It's no more likely that his reign will become the new Carolean Age than his mother's lived up to the over-hyped expectations of a New Elizabethan Age. The first King Charles' reign was utterly calamitous for his country and ended in his execution with the well-deserved soubriquet, A Man of Blood. Charles II was a traitor to his own country, a serial philanderer who, despite siring dozens of bastards, left no legitimate heir, paving the way for further chaos under his brother, James II, who succeeded him.

In view of this tainted legacy, I'm sure I was not alone in wondering if Charles might opt for his last given name, George, for his reign, as was his prerogative upon succession. He chose instead to stick with Charles, perhaps in the hope that it would be third time lucky. We shall see but I couldn't help imagining him shuddering momentarily as he rode past the equestrian statue of his first namesake at the top of Whitehall on his carriage journeys to and from Westminster Abbey yesterday. But maybe he had other things on his mind.

For example, what the fallout of his estrangement from his second son, Harry, and his American wife, Meghan, might be. Harry turned up for the coronation, sans wife, rather like Banquo's ghost. It's probably best for Charles not to pursue that particular analogy - suffice to say it didn't end well for Macbeth's dynastic ambitions. And his own rumoured impatience for kingship may yet come back to haunt him if he lives as long as his mother. In twenty-two years' time his heir, William, Prince of Wales, will be sixty-five and his son, George, thirty-two. 

A geriatric monarchy is unlikely to survive when polls show it already losing the support of young Britons. If Charles were to limit his term to ten years and William the same we'd still have in George a king in his early-fifties. This takes the monarchy a long way from the glamour of the eighteen year-old Victoria and twenty-six year-old Elizabeth at their respective coronations. 

Nothing is more likely to finish off the monarchy than a succession of middle-aged men and their wives making the trip to Westminster Abbey to be crowned. In an age where even popes retire, a limited term followed by dignified obscurity might be the best survival plan.

As they say in showbiz, always leave them wanting more.


Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more